The new computer, to be built by Sun Microsystems Inc. using 13,000
microprocessors made by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., will be more
powerful than any supercomputer currently in operation, UT says.

It will have a peak computing power of more than 400 trillion
operations per second, which makes it more than 40 percent faster than
the current supercomputing speed champ, Blue Gene/L, developed by IBM
Corp. for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

http://www.statesman.com/business/co...9computer.html

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:22:41 -0500, .Some.Guy. <power-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>The new computer, to be built by Sun Microsystems Inc. using 13,000
>microprocessors made by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., will be more
>powerful than any supercomputer currently in operation, UT says.
>
>It will have a peak computing power of more than 400 trillion
>operations per second, which makes it more than 40 percent faster than
>the current supercomputing speed champ, Blue Gene/L, developed by IBM
>Corp. for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
>
>http://www.statesman.com/business/co...9computer.html

....which will result in a nice uptick in overall Opteron sales. Hmm,
what kind of frame rate this thing will reach in [your favorite game
here]? ;-)

NNN

..Some.Guy. wrote:
> The new computer, to be built by Sun Microsystems Inc. using 13,000
> microprocessors made by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., will be more
> powerful than any supercomputer currently in operation, UT says.
>
> It will have a peak computing power of more than 400 trillion
> operations per second, which makes it more than 40 percent faster than
> the current supercomputing speed champ, Blue Gene/L, developed by IBM
> Corp. for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
>
> http://www.statesman.com/business/co...9computer.html
>

It seems so simple to put together a supercomputer these days. Just put
tons and tons of processors on. 10 000 here, 12 000 there, 13 000 here,
15 000 there, etc.

Yousuf Khan

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:22:41 -0500, .Some.Guy. <power-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>http://www.statesman.com/business/co...9computer.html


Sources tell me that the system will be using Opteron powered Sun blades
using Thumper disk systems. The blades are quad socket and will start
off dual core, but can migrate to quad core.

amdzone.com

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
>
> It seems so simple to put together a supercomputer these days. Just put
> tons and tons of processors on. 10 000 here, 12 000 there, 13 000 here,
> 15 000 there, etc.
>
> Yousuf Khan

once you get over about 1000 CPUs,
you also keep adding air conditioners to keep the build cool.....

ditto. the cooling on that joker fails and it would go up like the 4th
of july!

Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> It seems so simple to put together a supercomputer these days. Just put
> tons and tons of processors on. 10 000 here, 12 000 there, 13 000 here,
> 15 000 there, etc.
>

Just so, and it has been so for a long time. "Supercomputers" are now
more about real estate than about technology or cleverness. Buy
yourself a big warehouse, lots of cable, and some switches. You will
probaby also need to speak to your local electrical utility about your
needs.

The action isn't in the processors anymore. It's partly in the
interconnect, which is why Opteron is so attractive for building
supercomputers that can actually do something. It's also in power
consumption, which is why x86 clones (nor Itanium) may not be the
future of supercomputers.

RM

On 25 Oct 2006 10:26:32 -0700, "Robert Myers" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>> It seems so simple to put together a supercomputer these days. Just put
>> tons and tons of processors on. 10 000 here, 12 000 there, 13 000 here,
>> 15 000 there, etc.
>>
>
>Just so, and it has been so for a long time. "Supercomputers" are now
>more about real estate than about technology or cleverness. Buy
>yourself a big warehouse, lots of cable, and some switches. You will
>probaby also need to speak to your local electrical utility about your
>needs.
>
>The action isn't in the processors anymore. It's partly in the
>interconnect, which is why Opteron is so attractive for building
>supercomputers that can actually do something. It's also in power
>consumption, which is why x86 clones (nor Itanium) may not be the
>future of supercomputers.

Hey Robert - haven't heard from you here in a while.

Trouble is, nobody, not even the U.S. taxpayer, can afford a new custom
architecture and CPU design... which is going to be obsolete the day it
first starts "crunching". I believe that even the Japanese have finally
come to the same conclusion. Maybe the Chinese, with their uncanny ability
to hide epxense, will bite??:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
>
> Hey Robert - haven't heard from you here in a while.
>
My surplus U2 didn't come equipped with an internet connection.

> Trouble is, nobody, not even the U.S. taxpayer, can afford a new custom
> architecture and CPU design... which is going to be obsolete the day it
> first starts "crunching". I believe that even the Japanese have finally
> come to the same conclusion. Maybe the Chinese, with their uncanny ability
> to hide epxense, will bite??:-)
>
But specialized coprocessors are not out of reach. Folding at Home is
doing great things with GPU's.

Of course, saying "oh, we'll use coprocessors" is just another version
of the interconnect problem, but it may be the only practical solution
to the power consumption problem and the only solution at all to the
class of problems that appears to concern you: problems with a long
critical path.

Robert.

George Macdonald wrote:
snip
>
> Trouble is, nobody, not even the U.S. taxpayer, can afford a new custom
> architecture and CPU design... which is going to be obsolete the day it
> first starts "crunching". I believe that even the Japanese have finally
> come to the same conclusion. Maybe the Chinese, with their uncanny ability
> to hide epxense, will bite??:-)
>

Sure, all kinds of people can afford such a design. What's it cost?
Couple of Billion, or half of a fab? The Government (US Government that
is) takes in about 2500 Gigabucks per year and spends somewhat more.
The feds could afford an new state of the art architecture and set of
chips and boxes with the chips without breaking a sweat. It would be
cheap compared to developing an manufacturing a new fighter plane, or a
new destroyer.

On the other hand, even the government would have to have a semi valid
reason for doing so, and it isn't clear that there is one. Although
Cray and their vector processors are an interesting data point.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”