Slashdot Mirror


Eight PS3 'Supercomputer' Ponders Gravity Waves

Jamie found a story about a inexpensive supercomputer being used by an astrophysicist to research gravity waves. The interesting bit is that the system is built using 8 PS3s. Since nobody is actually playing games on the system, it makes sense to use them for research projects like this, but I really wonder now what is defining 'Supercomputer'... I mean, a hundred PS3s sure, but 8? I think we are de-valuing the meaning of the word 'super' :)

19 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Inexpensive, eh? by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, a hundred PS3s sure, but 8? I think we are de-valuing the meaning of the word 'super' :) I think we are de-valuing the meaning of the word 'inexpensive' :)
    1. Re:Inexpensive, eh? by The13thSin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For a supercomputer that's pretty cheap. Also I find the statement in the summary that there are no games to be played on the PS3 a bit childish. The PS3 has not been out for a year yet and there are multiple great games to get for it right now and even more coming very soon. I expected more from the Taco.

      --
      "This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
    2. Re:Inexpensive, eh? by smussman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think that the article imples that PS3s aren't flying off the shelves as fast as Sony might like and thus are sitting in a warehouse somewhere, otherwise going unused. Even the article claims that this was done mostly because of the open platform presented by Sony and the fact that this researcher was able to get the consoles free from Sony. This is great for Sony because a sold console is money in Sony's pocket regardless of who buys it and what they do with it. If they can convince researchers to buy PS3s then it's probably a better deal than selling them to gamers. Few gamers would buy the equivalent of 7 PS3s (about $2800) worth of games and accessories. Some will, but most won't; even when they do, it's spread over the life of the console. A researcher goes and gets 8 consoles, cash up front and there's $3200 for Sony (less taxes, mfg. costs, etc).

      Maybe it's jsut me, but that sounds like a pretty good deal from Sony IIRC, Sony sells consoles at a loss, and then gets that money back over the life of the console with license fees from games. So selling 8 consoles which will not generate money from game license fees, but still having to take the loss is not a good deal for Sony.
    3. Re:Inexpensive, eh? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you thought that was childish, then this should drive you into a perfect fit of apoplexy.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:Inexpensive, eh? by smussman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, but is that real money or is that subdivision expensing. In other words, does it lose $240 because Sony must use $800 of resources to produce a $600 product, or because sony-chipfab charges sony-board-assembly $60 for a part that cost $5 to produce? I found the original analysis of the PS3 cost here. At least 50% of the components are made by other manufacturers.
    5. Re:Inexpensive, eh? by SailorSpork · · Score: 5, Informative

      How much something "costs" to produce isn't as simple as the cost of parts. It may cost $5 for just the parts, it may also cost and extra $1-5 for the direct labor to put the board together, and it may cost and extra $1 to ship it. Then there's the cost of maintaining a chip fab, indirect labor and mangement costs and bribes to the chinese government to keep their cheap wage factory certified, divided over the 2-300 PS3's produced per month to keep up with worldwide demand, not to mention the cost of worldwide marketing, the cost of years of system & Blu-Ray R&D spread over each unit... keep in mind that the cost of making your PS3, Wii or software title is more than just more than the sum of the cost of the individual parts.
       
      Sorry, that was my Cost Accounding class talking, I'll stop now.

  2. 8 systems x 8 cores = by zifferent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    64 cpu's. That seems supercomputerish enough for me.

    --
    cat sig > /dev/null
    1. Re:8 systems x 8 cores = by andphi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Should be enough for anyone

    2. Re:8 systems x 8 cores = by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

      64 cpu's. That seems supercomputerish enough for me.

      It depends. For those problems that fit within the PS3's cramped memory, this is a supercomputer. For those problems that don't, this is a set of 8 matching doorstops.

    3. Re:8 systems x 8 cores = by Kupek · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's only six cores available to Linux per Cell processor on a PS3. One is reserved for the Game OS, and one is disabled to achieve a higher yield on fabrication. (The Game OS is always running, since Linux actually runs on top of a hypervisor.)

  3. Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Noone has wished for a Beowulf cluster of these yet. Has the world order changed and no notification issued?

  4. Supercomputer is a term that changes by szyzyg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just over a decade ago the fastest computers in the world were barely breaking the teraflop mark, today in theory the XB0x and Ps3 with their multitude of cpu cores and finely tuned graphics cards can top that. So 8 Ps3's - if you believe sony's hype could clock in a >10teraflops if the hardware was well utilised.

    I had a freiend who wrote a book 'Nemesis' which was a spy thriller involving a killer asteroid - it was published in the UK 1998, and back then he was talking about 'the teraflop box' as being the fastest computer in the world, unfortunaly it took 8 years to get the book released in the US and by that time a lot of the computer jargon had dated significantly, and you could get a teraflop box in the form of a turbocharged graphics card or cutting edge games console.

    1. Re:Supercomputer is a term that changes by Stefanwulf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sony's estimate of 1 teraflop per unit is more than a little bit optimistic, and also counts all the operations performed by the graphics system, which the average researcher won't have access to. For a slightly more realistic estimate of what 8 ps3's running linux can do, I'd point you towards http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/store/index.php?submit=software&submitimg%5Bhardware%5D%5Bsolutions%5D=1, who sell turnkey ps3 clusters. They are claiming that 8 units together break the theoretical teraflop mark, which seems more realistic to me. While that isn't among the fastest computers in the world by any stretch, it's still solidly in the realm of what I'd call a supercomputer.

      The cell is a fantastic piece of equipment - Dr. Dobb's has what I think is an excellent analysis of the kinds of performance benefits that it offers at http://www.ddj.com/hpc-high-performance-computing/197801624. I'm currently running one at home in a PS3 (for neural networks that drive an AIBO - I love Sony's tendency to dump hugely expensive hardware at mass-market prices), and I have every intention of picking up more used ones over the coming months to cluster together as the networks continue to grow. Even all by it's lonesome with code that's far from optimized, the one I have is running about 10 times faster than my main desktop for roughly equivalent computations.

      (Note that your mileage may vary - I just happen to like playing with systems that parallelize really well)

  5. Mystery solved by eaglesnax · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we know who bought all the PS3s!

  6. Re:Obligatory by threaded · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not true. I know of at least one place where they have a Cray and can't afford the electric bill to switch it on. They cost a fortune just to sit and look pretty too: it's taking up room on campus that could be used for other things.

  7. 1.2 TFlops by rockmuelle · · Score: 4, Informative

    8 PS3s gives you 1.2 teraflops of single-precision performance or a similar number if you stick to integer operations (6 SPUs/PS3 gives ~150 GFlops). 1.2 teraflops is a supercomputer in my book.

    Using Jack Dongerra's single-precision algorithms that do half the work in single and the other half in double precision, you can maintain a high level of performance and precision. And, the unique architecture of the Cell opens up some interesting algorithmic research issues, allowing scientists to publish twice for the same work: once for the science results, once for the computer science results. :)

    On the flip side, the Gigabit ethernet on the PS3s isn't really 1GB - the PPU can barely keep up. So, extra care must be taken around communication points. And, a similar Intel/AMD-based rack would run about $20k and is much easier to develop for, so if your labor is expensive (i.e., you're not in academia), PS3 clusters may not make much sense.

    -Chris

  8. 9 cores? by oblivion95 · · Score: 5, Funny
    They should have used 9 cores on the Cell. Then, they'd be using Seven of Nine.

    It's only six cores available to Linux per Cell processor on a PS3. One is reserved for the Game OS, and one is disabled to achieve a higher yield on fabrication.
  9. Re:"We Report. We Decide." by Intellectual+Elitist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 8 games? Yikes, either you play *everything* or you've got some real crud in there. Care to elaborate?

    The four games I was referring to were Ninja Gaiden Sigma (88), Skate (85), Stuntman: Ignition (75), and Warhawk (84). The downloadable game was Super Stardust HD (84). None of those games are even remotely close to "crud".

    The four games I referred to having an interest in purchasing before the end of the year are Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools Of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Rock Band, and the collector's edition of Stranglehold. I might also consider Army Of Two, Assassin's Creed, and Call Of Duty 4, depending on the reviews.

    > To give an idea, the top 8 games on PS3 get metacritic scores of 85 or more [...] Only one of those is over 90. To compare, the 360 has *27* games at 85 or more [...] 9 of which rate 90 or more.

    The original post had nothing to do with the 360 -- it was about the insinuation that no one uses the PS3 for gaming, which is ridiculous.

    You're also making an apples to oranges comparison, because the 360 has been out longer and has a much larger base of titles. But if you want to compare, as of October 13th Metacritic's aggregated ratings for the 360, PS3, and Wii show that the 360 has 264 rated games, the PS3 has 82, and the Wii has 87. Since the PS3 and Wii came out later than the 360 and around the same time as each other, this makes sense.

    If you look at the percentage of each console's library that has a metascore of 75 (out of 100) or higher, the PS3 leads with 54%, followed by the 360 at 44%, then the Wii with only 16%. If you go with a metascore of 80+, the PS3 has 34%, the 360 has 27%, and the Wii has only 8% above that level. At 90+ the Wii has 3%, the 360 has 3%, and the PS3 trails with only 1% of its library at that level.

    Going by percentages, the PS3 and 360 libraries are of roughly equivalent quality, while the Wii's lags far behind.

    > the general sentiment is the PS3 needs a killer app (like a halo, gears of war, or some other really good exclusive title) to make it worth getting.

    The general sentiment is also that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Britney Spears's personal life is somehow newsworthy. I'll think for myself, thanks.

    That said, every console gets a "killer app" eventually. I'm sure the inevitable God Of War III will fill that void if nothing else does beforehand.

  10. Re:Obligatory by adisakp · · Score: 5, Informative

    It would've been cheaper to just buy a Cray.

    If you read the article and followed the link to his PS3 Gravity Grid site, you'd know a couple things about the cost (FREE) for this computational power:

    #1) The total cost of purchasing an entire "PS3 Gravity Grid" supercomputer for yourself is less than the cost of a single simulation run on a BlueGene. In other words, you can buy the cow, the pasture, and a barn for the price of a gallon of milk.

    #2) Sony *DONATED* his 8-node cluster (albeit with 20GB PS3's which they were closing out at the time) so he actually got a "supercomputer" for nearly free.

    #3) The power of the 8-node PS3 cluster is roughly the same as a 200 node partition on a BlueGene SuperComputer (1 PS3 = 25 Blue Gene nodes). With 8 Cell CPUs, he has 56 SPU's running at ~3GHz to crank through his computations. This would mean a single CELL SPU is roughly 4X more powerful than a single BlueGene node which isn't unreasonable considering that it runs at a higher clockspeed (the supercomputer has to worry more about heat dissipation with hundreds or thousands of cores).

    #4) I believe that by the US Gov't's somewhat outdated standards, a PS2 qualifies as a supercomputer. The FPU power in a PS3 is on ther order of 200 times higher than that of the PS2 for single precision and considerably more for double precision (which is emulated in software on the PS2).