MIT Artificial Vision Researchers Assemble 16-GPU Machine

lindik writes "As part of their research efforts aimed at building real-time human-level artificial vision systems inspired by the brain, MIT graduate student Nicolas Pinto and principal investigators David Cox (Rowland Institute at Harvard) and James DiCarlo (McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT) recently assembled an impressive 16-GPU 'monster' composed of 8x9800gx2s donated by NVIDIA. The high-throughput method they promote can also use other ubiquitous technologies like IBM's Cell Broadband Engine processor (included in Sony's Playstation 3) or Amazon's Elastic Cloud Computing services. Interestingly, the team is also involved in the PetaVision project on the Roadrunner, the world's fastest supercomputer."

Comments

Just to get it out of the way...

[im_thatoneguy]

"But can it run Crysis?"

*Ducks*

So that's what happens

[chabotc]

When gamers grow up and go to college.. blue leds and bling in the server room!

Just how specialized is GPU hardware?

[MR.Mic]

I keep seeing all these articles about bringing more types of processing applications to the gpu, since it handles floating point math and parallel problems better. I only have a rudimentary understanding of programming compared to most people on this site, so the following may sound like a dumb question. But how do you determine what types of problems will perform well (or are even possible to be solved) through the use of GPUs, and just how "general purpose" can you get on such specialized hardware?

Thanks in advance.

Re:Just how specialized is GPU hardware?

[hansraj]

Not really. Not every problem gains from a gpu.

As a rule of thumb, if you problem requires solving many instances of one simple subproblem which are independent of each other then a gpu helps. A gpu is like a cpu with many many cores where each cpu is not as general purpose as your intel, rather each core is optimized for some solving small problem (without optimizing for frequent load/store/switching operations etc that a general cpu can handle quite well).

So if you see an easy parallelization of your problem, you might think of using a gpu. There are problems that are believed to not be efficiently parallelizable (Linear Programming is one such problem). Also, even if your problem can be easily made parallel it might be tricky to benefit from a gpu as each subroutines might be too complex.

I don't program but my guess would be that if you can see the solution to your problem consisting of a few lines of codes running on many processors and gaining anything, a gpu might be the way to go.

Perhaps someone can explain it better.

Re:Just how specialized is GPU hardware?

[moteyalpha]

I have been using my own GPU to do this very same thing by automatically converting images to vertex format and use the GPU to scale, shade, etc and in this way I can have a shape recognition by simply measuring the closest match on the frame buffer. There are more complex ways to use the GPU to do pseudo computation in parallel, I still think that a commonly available CAM or near CAM would increase neural like computations by being essentially a completely parallel process. It would be better to allow more people to experiment with the methods because the greatest gain and cost is the software itself and specialized hardware for a single purpose allows better profit but limits innovation.

Re:Say no to proprietary NVIDIA hardware

[ya really]

Tom's Hardware did a pretty good job detailing the ups and downs of ATI and Nvidia with many of the major games of last year (BioShock, World in Conflict, etc). Overall, both companies faired well, but they reported quite a few crashes due to the ATI drivers. I've had an ATI card before, the 9800xt when Nvidia was producing their horrible 5xxx series back in 2003-04 that was totally worthless. The 9800xt was a good card for everything (gaming, graphical aps, etc). Sorry, I should have cited sources. Wasn't trolling on purpose, though I know that writing anything positive about Nvidia on slashdot is borderline blasphemy.

Fascinating

[AlienIntelligence]

I think this part of the computing timeline is going to be
one that is well remembered. I know I find it fascinating.

This is a classic moment when tech takes the branch that
was unexpected. GPGPU computing will soon
reach ubiquity but for right now it's the fledgling that is being
grown in the wild.

Of course I'm not earmarking this one particular project
as the start point but this year has gotten 'GPU this' and
'GPGPU that' start up events all over it. Some even said
in 2007, that it would be a buzzword in 08.

And of course there's nothing like new tech to bring out
a naysayer.

Folding@home released their second generation
GPU client in April 08. While retiring the GPU1 core in
June of this year.

I know I enjoy throwing spare GPU cycles to a distributed
cause and whenever I catch sight of the icon for the GPU
client it brings the back the nostalgia of distributed clients
of the past. [Near the bottom].

I think I was with United Devices the longest.
And the Grid.

Now we are getting a chance to see GPU supercomputing
installations from IBM and this one from MIT.
Soon those will be littering the Top 500 list.

I also look forward most to the peaceful endeavors the new
processing power will be used for... weather analysis,
drug creation, and disease studies.

Oh yes, I realize places like the infamous Sandia will be using
the GPU to rev up atom splitting. But maybe if they keep their
bombs IN the GPU it'll lessen the chances of seeing rampant
proliferation again.

Ok, well enough of my musings over a GPU.

-AI

machine or machines?

[MoFoQ]

is it me or do I see two separate mobos...which means it's two machines, 8 per machine in one box....not 16?

now...if it was 16 in one...now that would be amazing....otherwise...it's not...'cuz there was that other group that did 8 in 1 (aka...16/2 => 8/1)

Re:Say no to proprietary NVIDIA hardware

[TheRaven64]

A video card driver typically has three major components:

• The parts specific to the windowing system (including context switching / multiplexing).
• The parts specific to the 3D API.
• The parts specific to the hardware.

ATi could conceivably steal parts from the first two from nVidia, but it's doubtful that they could steal anything from the last part since their hardware designs are sufficiently different to make this hard.

The problem nVidia are going to have is that the new Gallium architecture means that the first two parts are abstracted away and reusable, as is the fall-back path (which emulates functionality any specific GPU might be missing). This means that Intel and AMD both get to benefit from the other company (and random hippyware developers and other GPU manufacturers / users) improving the generic components, while nVidia are stuck developing their own entire alternative to DRI, DRM, Gallium, and Mesa. The upshot is that Intel and AMD can spend a tiny fraction of the time (and, thus, money) developing drivers that nVidia do. In the long run, this means either smaller profits or more expensive cards for nVidia, more bugs in nVidia drivers (since they don't have the same real-world coverage testing).

Now, if you're talking just about specs, then you're just plain trolling. Intel doesn't lose anything to AMD by releasing the specs for the Core 2 in a 3000 page PDF, because the specs just give you the input-output semantics, they don't give you any implementation details. Anyone with a little bit of VLSI experience could make an x86 chip, but making one that gives good performance and good performance-per-Watt is a lot harder. Similarly, the specs for an nVidia card would let anyone make a clone, but they'd have to spend a lot of time and effort optimising their design to get anywhere close to the performance that nVidia get.

DX10 vs DX9

[DrYak]

There are 2 main differences between DX9 and DX10 :

I - The shaders offered by the two APIs are different (shader model 3 vs 4). None of the DX9 screen shot does self-shading. This is specially visible on the rocks (but even in action on the plancks of the fences). So there *are* available under Vista additional subtleties

II - The driver architecture is much more complex in Vista, because it is built to enable cooperation between several separate processes all using the graphics at the same time. Even if Vista automatically disables Aero when games are running full-screen (and thus the game is the only process accessing the graphic card), the additional layers of abstraction have an impact on performance. It is specially visible at low quality settings where the software overhead is more noticeable.