World's Greenest Supercomputer is Not the Fastest

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]Am I the only one here that twitched when I saw that mass of cables? Does proper cable management somehow make it less efficient?[/citation]
Maybe, in which case this

cable_mess.jpg


is probably the world fastest computer
 
[citation][nom]officeguy[/nom]What is the table for? Looks like it is holding up a mess of cables. Looks like you have to crawl to get to certain racks. So much for cable management.[/citation]
I see thick black cables all leading to that table, maybe a HUGE power strip? Personally I would be scared to walk into that room, one wrong step and BOOM, down comes the server... literally.
 
"World's Greenest Supercomputer Not the Fastest"

REALLY? Is the world's "Greenest Automobile" the fastest? Do we expect it to be?
 
seriously, this would make a sick gaming computer with all those LEDs.. the only thing we need now is another room full of 5970s 😀

LAN anyone?
 
Wait until Intel releases their multicore Atom processors for servers and supercomputers.
Plug in 64 of those who already can handle more than 128threads per core, and you got yourself one heck of a power saving superC!
 
Green = uses more power. Plants like carbon, they grow faster, their leaves are generally green. Less Power means less carbon for them, they grow slower.

If you mean low power, say low power. Saying "Green" is common, but it's stupid. Again, plants LOVE carbon dioxide.
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Green = uses more power. Plants like carbon, they grow faster, their leaves are generally green. Less Power means less carbon for them, they grow slower.If you mean low power, say low power. Saying "Green" is common, but it's stupid. Again, plants LOVE carbon dioxide.[/citation]

Except there's already more CO2 being released into the atmosphere than photosynthesizing organisms can remove.
 
[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]Except there's already more CO2 being released into the atmosphere than photosynthesizing organisms can remove.[/citation]
Not to be too controversial but a lot of the hype surrounding mankind's production of CO2 to cause global warming is total BS.
Everytime someone provides ropey data to support it politicians cling to it like it is gospel.
And when other scientists produce more concrete data to show that global warming is BS they are ridiculed and called cranks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3561012/Nasa-is-out-of-line-on-global-warming.html
I dont expect this to turn into a debate on global warming, but please dont automatically accept anything that Al Gore pushes under your nose, the guy is on the board of Apple for crying out loud.
 
[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Not to be too controversial but a lot of the hype surrounding mankind's production of CO2 to cause global warming is total BS.Everytime someone provides ropey data to support it politicians cling to it like it is gospel.And when other scientists produce more concrete data to show that global warming is BS they are ridiculed and called crankshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment [...] rming.htmlI dont expect this to turn into a debate on global warming, but please dont automatically accept anything that Al Gore pushes under your nose, the guy is on the board of Apple for crying out loud.[/citation]

I'm sorry, why do you assume that I'm talking about mankind's contribution?

Mankind's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is a minor % of the total.

However, the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere does exceed the ability of photosynthesizing organisms to remove. Plant's also only contribute a small percentage to CO2 removal. It's algae that do the vast majority of the removal.
 
The performance is 867MFLOPS PERwatt, so its totally difference than GPUs that can do ~2TFLOPS at ~100-300+ watts. Go figure.
 
[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]I'm sorry, why do you assume that I'm talking about mankind's contribution?Mankind's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is a minor % of the total.However, the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere does exceed the ability of photosynthesizing organisms to remove. Plant's also only contribute a small percentage to CO2 removal. It's algae that do the vast majority of the removal.[/citation]
I think the point that is trying to be made here is that production of CO2, regardless of source, causing Global Warming - is basically Hooey. Figures that show temperature rises have been fudged, fiddled and f**ked with for someones benefit, but it sure aint the public's.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]The point I am trying to make is that production of CO2, regardless of source, causing Global Warming - is basically Hooey. Figures that show temperature rises have been fudged, fiddled and f**ked with for someones benefit, but it sure aint the public's.[/citation]


I made no mentioned of global warming or temperature...

I stated a simple fact about the current status of Carbon flow in the biosphere.

If you're assuming that higher C02 results in higher temperatures or global warming...um, then aren't you basically agreeing with the point you're arguing against?

I take it that if the weatherman reports that temps in NYC were near record highs last week, you don't start railing at him that global warming is a lie?
 
[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]I made no mentioned of global warming or temperature...I stated a simple fact about the current status of Carbon flow in the biosphere. If you're assuming that higher C02 results in higher temperatures or global warming...um, then aren't you basically agreeing with the point you're arguing against?I take it that if the weatherman reports that temps in NYC were near record highs last week, you don't start railing at him that global warming is a lie?[/citation]
Wow, lets just wind this back a few levels and try to confuse what I said with what you think.

If you say that there is more CO2 than organisms can remove, you are already implying that ther is some kind of end result for the build of of CO2, some kind of consequence.

The "guesswork" of the fudged science is that it will cause global warming, which could lead to all kinds of Roland Emmerich films turning into reality.

The science truely is fudged, there have been no real temperature rises beyond a totally natural rise and fall over a several-decades long cycle that has apparently been running since the dawn of time.

CO2 increase is doing precisely dick to the environment.

But, get this, not only have i had to explain myself in greater detail when it is a plain as the nose on your fat stupid face, but your statement about organism not being able to process the CO2 is bullshit too as any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased absorption from the organisms in question. Trees grow faster, algae grows faster and at the same time they produce more oxygen. That's why they call it an "eco-system". As far as glacial melting in the Antarctic goes there is evidence to suggest they are being melted from below by volcanic activity and the really big hype from the hole in the ozone layer from the 1980's is nowhere to be heard of because, golly-gosh, the hole either isn't there anymore or has shrunk to such a small size that they just can't find it and the whole thing was just a massive scare-story because they didn't understand that things like that happen on massively long cycles that run over decades or even centuries and they were being Chicken Little saying the sky was falling in.

Don't Panic. The world is not coming to an end, if you still feel that strong about it go plant a tree.
 
You do know I'm not a supporter of global warming...

I too believe it's exaggerated.

I just don't appreciate idiots coming in, taking scientific fact, backed by clear supporting evidence, and then spinning it to satisfy their own agenda.

Their is a wealth of datum in dozens of respected publications, including nature demonstrating that CO2 release rate into the atmosphere exceeds current removal rate.

Indeed, even people who say global warming is a lie, do not deny that the rate of CO2 release into the atmosphere is exceeding the rate at which is is removed. Well, I guess except for kooks.

Read the primary articles yourself.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6630/abs/387272a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6438/abs/364616a0.html
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/us9301.pdf
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/handle/10113/104
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v329/n6137/abs/329321a0.html
 
you guys have the same thing in common... global warming is bull and we cant do anythin to stop it unless we place plant pots instead of PCs next to us*!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.