Slashdot Mirror


AMD Plans 1,000-GPU Supercomputer For Games, Cloud

arcticstoat writes "AMD is planning to use over 1,000 Radeon HD 4870 GPUs to create a supercomputer capable of processing one petaflop, which the company says will make 'cloud' computing a reality. When it's built later this year, the Fusion Render Cloud will be available as an online powerhorse for a variety of people, from gamers to 3D animators. The company claims that it could 'deliver video games, PC applications and other graphically-intensive applications through the Internet "cloud" to virtually any type of mobile device with a web browser.' The idea is that the Fusion Render Cloud will do all the hard work, so all you need is a machine capable of playing back the results, saving battery life and the need for ever greater processing power. AMD also says that the supercomputer will 'enable remote real-time rendering of film and visual effects graphics on an unprecedented scale.' Meanwhile, game developers would be able to use the supercomputer to quickly develop games, and also 'serve up virtual world games with unlimited photo-realistic detail.' The supercomputer will be powered by OTOY software, which allows you to render 3D visuals in your browser via streaming, compressed online data."

91 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Oh Yeah? Well..... by Todd+Fisher · · Score: 5, Funny

    Intel Plans 2,000-GPU Supercomputer For Games, Lightning

    --


    --I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
    1. Re:Oh Yeah? Well..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      2000 Intel GPUs?? Well, that's like a Radeon 3650, right?

    2. Re:Oh Yeah? Well..... by thexile · · Score: 1

      I still can't run Vista!

  2. Uhm, bandwidth? by Taibhsear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if the "work" is offloaded to the cloud won't you still need an assload of bandwidth on said devices in order to actually amount to anything? It's not like you're going to get pci-express bandwidth capabilities over dsl or cable internet connection.

    1. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by megaditto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We can already stream DVD-quality movies encoded at 1 mbps or so, well within the current consumer "broadband" offerings. I'd assume that would be in the target range.

      But even if you wanted for some reason to go uncompressed, then 8-bit 800x600 at 25 fps would still be less than 100 mbps, not totally unreasonable.

      I would imagine the latency would be a much bigger problem than bandwidth. If you ever used VNC you probably know what I mean.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by sreid · · Score: 1

      more or less.. i think a high def movie can be streamed at under 300kbs

    3. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by martinw89 · · Score: 1

      While I agree that this is odd with games, I definitely see the potential for 3d animators. It takes my home computers (note the plural) hours/days to render complex scenes, depending on the length of the scene. The advantage in computing power would greatly outweigh the bandwidth cost here, especially if you could just upload the job and wait for the result (instead of sending each frame to be rendered).

      But I would imagine it would not take many people to bog this down.

    4. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Even if the "work" is offloaded to the cloud won't you still need an assload of bandwidth on said devices in order to actually amount to anything? It's not like you're going to get pci-express bandwidth capabilities over dsl or cable internet connection.

      There are services that have low demands on the client and high demands on the server. For example, a game with a huge player population (like several hundred thousand). I think that Second Life or Eve Online would be examples of such games. The graphics isn't that demanding on older PCs and they have a huge player population. So no, you wouldn't need to have a huge amount of bandwidth, but it's not going to be state of the art graphics.

    5. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by Frenchman113 · · Score: 5, Informative

      We can already stream DVD-quality movies encoded at 1 mbps or so, well within the current consumer "broadband" offerings.

      No, we can't. Of course, if you've been fooled into thinking that scene crap is "DVD quality", then perhaps this holds true. Otherwise, you would realize that not even H.264 can deliver DVD quality video (720x480, no artifacts) in less than 1 Mbps.

    6. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by amirulbahr · · Score: 1

      You don't need PCI-e bandwidth. All you are doing is transporting 2-dimensional video. We are already very good at doing that over moderate bandwidth connections.

      1-2 Mbps will do standard definition video comfortably well.

    7. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by bmorency · · Score: 1

      We can already stream DVD-quality movies encoded at 1 mbps or so, well within the current consumer "broadband" offerings. I'd assume that would be in the target range.

      I'm not exactly sure how this will work but they said you have to offload the data to their servers. So if you are playing a game wouldn't you have to upload all the data to their servers so they can process it? Consumer internet connections are fairly quick at downloading but it seems that the upload speed is going to be a problem. My internet connection is 10mbps down but only about 700kbps up. So that seems like it would be the problem.

    8. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by painehope · · Score: 1
      Um, yes, everyone.

      Bandwidth. That precious commodity.

      Obviously, they're going off one or more of these assumptions/instances :

      1) They have designed one hell of a compression algorithm. The OTOY site has between fuck-all and nothing on it, and the domain is relatively new (which doesn't say much - if some bright spark at AMD developed a mean compression algorithm that isn't overwhelmingly intensive, and s/he split off, then it would be new).
      2) Mobile bandwidth will be making a fantastic leap at roughly the same time as this system is implemented (not an unreasonable assumption - I've done a little bit of work with long-range wireless - it was directed, not broadcast - and can tell you that it's coming faster than most people think, just not this year).
      3) Wired, consumer-grade bandwidth will be making a similar leap. This falls under the "yeah, so what?" category. We all know it. Now if someone could explain to the telco execs and the general public why we should be planning/upgrading our infrastructure (both for this and in general - the last hurricane that hit the Texas coast left me with no power for about 3 goddamn weeks), the world would be a better place.
      4) This will only be usable in certain hot-spots (like places with > N Mbps - wired or wireless).
      5) This will only be usable with certain devices (like ones that have the software and hardware necessary to handle both the bandwidth and/or compression).
      6) Someone's been putting liquid LSD-25 in the AMD/ATI water again. Hey, remember the K6-2? Anyone other than me want to shoot someone at IBM/Lenovo for picking out ATI graphics cards for their ThinkPad laptops (which is the only brand of laptop that meets my standards for power and resilience, but those ATI driver suck!).

      Now my guess is that more than one of the above are true. Which ones are true remain to be decided by a tripod of brilliance, avarice, and sheer bone-headed susceptibility to delusions.

      I'm taking bets...

      --
      PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    9. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by Wallslide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea is that the only thing you are uploading to the server is input, such as mouse/keyboard/voice information. The game logic and assets all reside on the server itself, and thus don't have to be upload by your machine. It's as if you were playing a game over a VNC connection.

      One thing that is really cool about this technology is that it has the potential to eliminate cheating in games such as first person shooters. A lot of the cheating in the past is because the game client running on a user's machine actually knows a lot more information than what is being shown to the user. If a user can get past those artificial barriers to the information with hacked graphics drivers to see through walls, or sound drivers to see the exact location of footsteps, then they have a huge advantage over another user which leaves those artificial "information limiters" in place. It turns out it's very difficult to limit the sending of information from the server to a game client to only exactly what a game client needs at any given time. Theoretically, if the only thing being received from a game server are pre-rendered images, the a user couldn't use that information to cheat with wallhacks or any other current cheats that I know of. The problem is that there would also be no way to do client-side prediction (which is why extra information generally has to be sent in the first place), and mitigate the lag that inevitably exists between nearly all servers and clients to this day.

    10. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      You think this is so you don't have to buy a new graphics card? The only reason companies would go for this is because it changes their games from a product to a service, so piracy goes away. Next-gen DRM, if you will (next-gen doesn't have to be worse, however; I avoid buying games due to how invasive the DRM is and know plenty of people who do the same, so the next generation of the stuff damn well better address that).

      If it's implemented correctly it would still offer us advantages - play from any computer with a net connection (meaning proper gaming on Linux and Mac, as you'd need just a client to interface with their app, not the low-level DirectX APIs) would be enough for me. I see publishers taking a Zune-esque approach where you could get unlimited access to any of their games for some standard monthly fee (which makes a lot more sense with games than music anyways). Making stuff cheap, easy, and accessible goes a long way when the only downside to your competition is that it's illegal, especially when people don't seem to care if the numbers you can spot at ThePirateBay are anything to go by.

      As for the implementation issues, I'll second the VNC analogy. Of course, it seems to be less responsive than either Microsoft or Apple's implementation of system-specific remote desktop software, but that comes down to encoding tricks (like only re-sending parts of the screen that actually changed, or a more procedural-type "draw a standard app window with this text at point X,Y" sharing rather than sending jpegs across the wires). It hardly matters for gaming though - I *have* tried gaming over VNC, ARD, and RDC, and even over wired gig-e you can't get a smooth picture, let alone something responsive. I think that's more of a CPU bandwidth issue than a network one, though. If you have the CPU/GPU horsepower, you could encode the game's output in x264 (or something of similar compression ratios, but much more response-friendly) in realtime and stream that over the network.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    11. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by malv · · Score: 1

      Compress and stream like a youtube video.

    12. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by Arrakis+Dv8r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (720x480, no artifacts)

      Are you blind? DVD is full of artefacts, its mpeg, its ass.

    13. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by painehope · · Score: 1
      That's the rub, though. Text is easy to compress, especially ASCII, UTF-8, et al. Hence the reason for mark-up languages that are rendered locally by your browser, as well. That's old news.

      The kinds of data that they're implying that this "Cloud" (not an original name - the Supercomputing Conference has had "Cloud Computing" for several years, basically a pool/grid of various institutions and/or sponsors who contribute compute, storage, etc. to the conference participants) will handle does not lend itself all that well to compression. Hence the lag you experience in online games, despite the wired connections and the specialized gaming hardware necessary to render the scenery and whatnot.

      I'm not saying it's infeasible. I'm saying that you won't see it in a consumer-grade, relatively open fashion in the near future. And not without some of the restrictions I mentioned.

      And I apologize to the world at large for not bringing latency into the picture. I was high as a kite and assumed it would be pretty obvious.

      --
      PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    14. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by Mozk · · Score: 1

      I hope to god that games don't start using this just to thwart cheaters. The one thing I do like about this, though, is that a user would use the same network bandwidth whether they use 2xAA or 16xAA, assuming that the server computer renders them in about the same time.

      --
      No existe.
    15. Re:Uhm, bandwidth? by painehope · · Score: 1
      In my opinion, it's just another supercomputer. Plain and simple. People are already using other specialized processors (IBM, Cray, etc.) - and have been for a long time - to process data.

      The fact that this one is specifically targeted towards rendering graphics doesn't make it any conceptually unique. And just like everyone has been rabbiting along about the wonders of grid computing (and yet there are so many varying alliances right now that I don't think we'll see much progress for a while; companies don't use grids because of the bandwidth/latency issues, generally...and thus the only people doing anything with grids are publicly funded institutions, like national labs and various educational systems - it's a lot easier to justify running a lot of fiber around the country when you have a state or national government behind you), I don't think this will be some wonderful thing that anyone can go buy a 200 USD hand-held device and watch indie flicks on. Or whatever.

      It's still a cool use of a supercomputer, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it's going to be the Next Great Thing (TM) until a lot of social infrastructure paradigms (what people just call "shit") change.

      --
      PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
  3. Good luck by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "VNCing" games through the Internet and possibly a wireless network, and getting a decent enough latency and enough throughoutput to get a good image quality/FPS? Good luck with that, not saying it won't work, but if it does work satisfyingly and reliably it'll be an impressive feat.

    Well I know StreamMyGame does it, but it's meant to be used locally, not over the internet + WiFi, right?

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:Good luck by erikina · · Score: 1

      WiFi itself is enough to completely kill a gaming session. When I'm at home on my laptop, I like to remotely login to my desktop. Allows me the horse power of my desktop, along with access to all the files (read: pr0n).

      Works flawlessly really, but the difference between ethernet and wifi is perceptible. But as soon you try gaming over it, it becomes unusable (for any action game at least). Even simple games like kasteroids or kbounce are not worth using (I get routine 1 second freezes). On the other hand, doing the same thing over ethernet is perfect and you couldn't tell the difference.

      In fact, connecting from university (where the latency is around 60-80ms) is a lot smoother than wifi (where the latency is

    2. Re:Good luck by erikina · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself. The end of my post got truncated by html parser thingy. Slashdot has to be the bulletin board where you need to write &lt; to get a < sign..

      The end of the post should have:

      < 1ms). I assume it must be from packet loss, but it very well might be a bandwidth issue too.

    3. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Slashdot has to be the bulletin board

      I'm assuming you used angel brackets to emphasize <only> as well :P

    4. Re:Good luck by TwistedSymmetry · · Score: 1

      You sure it wasn't the lousy wi-fi connection? ;-)

    5. Re:Good luck by sam0737 · · Score: 1

      Sure...it would need the bandwidth of receiving fullscreen video/audio.

      Latency wise, some game may be more suitable than the others. For example, RTS game like Warcraft III - where the action are carried out ONLY after the command is synced to each other players, and is lagged anyway.

      Though I think it's has much more value in doing pre-rendering, animation rendering, etc. AMD just rents the CPU hour for you to get your job done.

  4. Only 1.000? by Duncan3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Folding@home is at 1.007 PFLOPS of just ATI GPUs :)

    (which is an entirely different sort of "computer", but still)

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    1. Re:Only 1.000? by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 1

      These days they've got nVidia ones too though. The nVidia ones get more PPD somehow, even though the ATI clients have been out longer and ATI GPUs seem to have higher theoretical output. And yay, I'm contributing to that major FLOPpage with my ATI GPU.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
  5. Cloud?! TWO IN ONE DAY? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Funny

    Attention, AMD Marketroids: Please kill yourselves. Now. Do it now.

    *blink*

    Yes. All of you.

  6. What about latency in gaming? by WiiVault · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm all for cloud gaming- it would be great to not have to upgrade my GPU all the time to play new games, however I wonder how this could be accomplished in a way where lag was so minimal as to not affect gameplay. It seems this would be especially hard if one were to play online games. Correct me if I'm wrong but it would seem one would need to add the lag from the client to the cloud AND the lag from the player to player (or server) in the multiplayer networking. That seems like a too much lag for most FPS's, which I'm assuming are one genre which would gain the most from such a supercomputer.

    1. Re:What about latency in gaming? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Maybe it could just bake occlusion maps and such and stream that out to you. That stuff can tolerate a little lag once in a while (things will just look weird, or fall back on something less realistic), requires a whole lotta processing per scene, and in say a mmorpg type environment, it only has to be done once for everybody.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:What about latency in gaming? by Waccoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having a cloud in your own house would be nice, so everyone could share computing power across multiple computers.

      I, for one, do not want my computing power on lease.

    3. Re:What about latency in gaming? by Bio)-(azard · · Score: 1

      Latency is and would be a huge factor. I truly don't think this would be meant for FPS. I could see it being used for local gaming on a phone, but not a multi player game at all. This is not a technology that will let you play Crysis on your crappy PC.

      The whole idea, if I am not mistaken, is for 'mainframe', err 'cloud' GPU to render content that is beyond the capability of the device accessing it. So now, instead of just game data being transmitted over the network, now we are going to render graphics too and send it over the network. Giving Comcast and Verison all the more reason to justify content filtering to relieve their congested networks.

      Perhaps such a solution could be used in a rendering farm for static content. Maybe it's just me, but this seems to be more of a solution looking for a problem.

    4. Re:What about latency in gaming? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Having a cloud in your own house would be nice, so everyone could share computing power across multiple computers.

      Yeah. That would be nice. If you have the hardware all you need is the right software.

      I don't know why more people don't do it -- not just homes, either. All sorts of orgs could use their desktops as a grid for on-demand supercomputing if only they would configure it to do that.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:What about latency in gaming? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Having a cloud in your own house would be nice, so everyone could share computing power across multiple computers.

      Can I do a joke about how it's dangerous mixing rain and electricity?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. Latency? by hax0r_this · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try downloading a picture at your phone's native resolution (a screenshot of a 3d game taken on your phone would be ideal). It will take at least that long for a "game" to respond to your input on this system.

    And I doubt that streaming a 3d rendering will really save much battery either considering all the network activity.

  8. online powerhorse? by mihalis · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Fusion Render Cloud will be available as an online powerhorse
    AMD also described NVIDIA's Quadroplex as more of an online My Little Pony.

  9. How will this save money? by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Instead of buying a $400 video card, now you're paying AMD to buy that video card for you, paying them for the management of that card, and paying your ISP for the bandwidth. The only possible way this works is if you only use your card 10% of the time, then AMD can utilize it at 100%, selling you just one-tenth the total.

    Of course, that's great for gamers, who will sporadically play throughout the day, but awful for movie studios who could probably keep a render farm at 100% anyway.

    1. Re:How will this save money? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Movie-grade CG tends to rendered via raytracing, which, AFAIK, is an algorithm that is more suited to be run on a general-purpose CPU, instead of a GPU.

      I'm sure part of the reason that nVIDIA and ATI have been working to develop alternative applications of their GPU technology is that their GPUs could potentially become unnecessary to gamers, should CPUs ever reach the speed where real-time raytracing is practical.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  10. One Problem by Akir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're going to have to write a driver that works before they get that to work.

  11. No, latency by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bandwidth is only a problem until we build bigger tubes. As much as we all like to bitch about internet here in the US, we're at least capable of increasing the bandwidth quite well. The real problem is dealing with the latency. With enough time and money we could easily push as much data as we could possibly want, but we can only push it so fast.

    For some games it probably won't matter, but who'd want to use it for an FPS where regardless of how detailed your graphics are, even a tenth of a second lag is the difference between who lives and who dies? Until we can get around those limitations, I don't foresee the traditional setup changing much.

    1. Re:No, latency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, games that deal with dead reckoning (e.g. FPS) aren't the first candidate for this it is perfect for deterministic peer to peer simulations (e.g. RTS)!

      A typical RTS will only simulate at 8-12Hz. Yes, expect 126ms - 249 ms lag! But you don't even notice.

    2. Re:No, latency by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      For some games it probably won't matter, but who'd want to use it for an FPS where regardless of how detailed your graphics are, even a tenth of a second lag is the difference between who lives and who dies?

      I might just be talking out of my ass here, but... If latency is your only bottleneck, and you have plenty of bandwidth and CPU on the server, wouldn't it be possible to deliver as many renderings as there are possible inputs, and only use whichever one corresponds to what the player actually does?

      A simple example would be a game where, at any moment, the player could be moving up, down, left, or right. The server could generate four different views, one for each possible input. All four are delivered to the client. And the client's only job would be to determine the player's input, display the correct scene, and send notice of the players input to the server so the state of the game could be updated. Obviously, modern FPS have many more possible inputs, but the theory is the same. I don't think there would be any latency using this system.

      For multi-player games, a similar setup could be used, only the server would have to create potential renderings for each player's inputs, in addition to the local client's inputs. So you could end up sending hundreds of frames down the wire and only to use one. But the latency would be the same as traditional multi-player games.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    3. Re:No, latency by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      While I agree that with regards to gaming they are probably blowing smoke, where I can see this thing being a boon is in the field of amateur film making. Imagine the kind of effects all those future film makers could create with access to that kind of rendering power. If the rental price is reasonable then I could see this possibly doing for films what digital gear has done for musicians. That is of course give the power to the creators instead of the middle men.

      I would love to see what kinds of films we will get when artists don't need to get approved by some studio exec just to get his sci fi/horror/action movie done. I just hope it pans out and is affordable enough. Hell if it works well even the bigger names could find uses for it. Can you imagine what Josh Whedon could have cooked up for Buffy and Firefly if he wasn't always worried about the budget? With this kind of horsepower anything the artist could imagine could be created.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:No, latency by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You WILL notice the input lag though.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:No, latency by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For some people, maybe. But professional RTS gamers can have between 300-400 actions per minute, and some ridiculously good ones have 500, and if they had that much lag I wager they would notice. And of course, that's on top of the amount of time it takes for the supercomputer to generate the image.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
    6. Re:No, latency by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      A problem would be that the number of frames increases exponentially with the time you render ahead. 100ms lag on 60fps would mean something like (number of input options)^6 frames to render. With your four options that would be 4^6=4096 frames. You'd need a system that's more than 4096 times as powerful as the average user's computer times the number of users you have. At this point it's easier to just tell the user to buy his own damn hardware.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    7. Re:No, latency by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the rendering hardware is the bottleneck for amateur movie CGI. It's more likely that they simply don't have the necessary artists to create the scenes in first place. You need a large staff to do the things modern movies do in reasonable time, hiring 20-30 professionals (probably more even) for the task tends to be a bit too expensive for amateur movie budgets.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:No, latency by icebraining · · Score: 1

      But in a FPS game only camera movement is almost infinite.. There's millions, probably billions of "possible" actions, from moving the camera to walking, shooting, and all the combinations between them, for every player in the game! Even if the "cloud server" could make it and the bandwith was enough, you probably would have to get a "super" CPU just to process that gigantic stream of data.

    9. Re:No, latency by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      MMOs could benefit too.

      EVE has a ONE SECOND tick rate. Admittedly the client interpolates so that you see smooth movement, but there is always at least a 1s gap between your weapons firing, or between clicking the button and having a module activate. No-one complains.

      It goes a way towards explaining how they can support so many players in one universe at once.

  12. I know kung-fu. by acedotcom · · Score: 2, Funny

    AMD also says that the supercomputer will 'enable remote real-time rendering of film and visual effects graphics on an unprecedented scale.' Meanwhile, game developers would be able to use the supercomputer to quickly develop games, and also 'serve up virtual world games with unlimited photo-realistic detail.'

    they have this in the future. don't they call it the matrix?

    --
    they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
  13. I look forward to by sleeponthemic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Playing Duke Nukem Forever @ 1900x1200 through the Fusion Render Cloud, occasionally reloading the latest results of the (fully operational)Super Hadron Collider on my Nintendo VR Goggles powered by a free energy device producing negative infinity carbon emissions.

    --
    I record my sleeptalking
    1. Re:I look forward to by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      All that from your flying car, I assume?

      Nah, I say from his grave, from the look of things.

    2. Re:I look forward to by plehmuffin · · Score: 1
      producing negative infinity carbon emissions

      But The Plants! All the plants would die. In fact, the ridiculously negative carbon equilibrium so established would SUCK THE CARBON FROM OUR VERY BONES! (Carbon is a relatively major component of bone tissue, the calcium phosphate component aside.)

  14. Re:Wow, streamed 3D games.. by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Um, I need two of these setups, so I can finally play Crysis with my friend.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  15. Re:Wow, streamed 3D games.. by Anpheus · · Score: 1

    Compression is, after all, for losers.

  16. Contest, the rematch... by graymocker · · Score: 2, Funny

    A comment from the story earlier today about nVidia's new 2-teraflop multicore card:

    Yet again, Nvidia showed ATI that it, indeed, has the biggest penis.

    Hah! HAH! While nVidia dicks around with expansion cards measured in mere teraflops, AMD is building a SUPERCOMPUTER. That's a /peta/flop, nVidia! If you don't know what that is, here's a hint: take your teraflop. Then add three zeros to the end. BAM!

    AMD's penis is now 500 times larger than nVidia's. It's math.

    1. Re:Contest, the rematch... by Zephiris · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nvidia's GTX 295 was around 1.7 teraflops I believe, while the (similarly priced) 4870X2 is 2.4. The 'mere' 295 supposedly beats the 4870X2 by 15% average.
      The difference is? Nvidia always has pretty good drivers. ATI struggles to allow games to take >50% advantage of even the lowly 3870 (as measured by the card's own performance counters)...let alone a 2.4 tflop card...let alone a massive array of 4870s.

      Plus, wouldn't a 1000 GPU 4870 cloud...only allow some 1000 users some fractional percentage of one 4870 capped by latency and other overhead?

      Or...are we talking about providing a larger number of mobile devices the equivalent capabilities and speed of 1999's Geforce 256?

      Either way...I don't think it'll catch on, and will be a huge money sink for AMD when it needs to be fixing its processor and video card issues for the average, real consumers who are losing faith in AMD's ability to provide reasonable and usefully competitive products.

      --

      "A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
  17. Re:Wow, streamed 3D games.. by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Funny

    What does your friend use?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  18. I'd love to... by Draconi · · Score: 1

    ...build games for it - but how does this translate to serving up virtual world games with unlimited photorealistic detail?

    Does it draw the perspective for every individual logged on player ahead of time, cache it, and somehow overcome bandwidth and latency concerns to deliver something in higher quality than a local GPU can do?

    Or is this about the architecture of the virtual world itself - messaging, AI threads, triggers, events, decision making? It would have to be one incredible world that required more than a rack of servers in a colo can admirably achieve today.

    Now, as far as actual development goes, I can see how this would be an incredible tool. I'm just confused where the cloud becomes a gaming platform.

  19. Re:for reals? by Draconi · · Score: 1

    Don't you understand!? With this, my god, we could build an entire virtual world, out of fully interactive, fully physic'd, fully exploding *barrels*!

  20. Re:Wow, streamed 3D games.. by davester666 · · Score: 1
    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  21. Re:for reals? by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

    do a barrel roll! in real-time! maybe even SPACE-TIME!!!

    --
    Balderdash!
  22. Whoa!!! by coopaq · · Score: 1

    Streaming video games over the net from a server cloud?

    Who let the marketing guys out of their cage on this one?

    I mean... it will be faster than Intel's local 3D chips sure, but still... come on!

  23. beowulf cluster by moniker127 · · Score: 1

    Imagine a beow... oh... damn it, thats what they did.

  24. Ah, the Big Iron versus micros war again.... by macraig · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Figures. See, most people thought that war had been won long ago. Perhaps it was, but now the Big Iron camp has a new ally: Big Software, who REALLY wants to do away with one-time licenses and purchases and substitute the far more lucrative "Web apps" and the subscription licensing and fees that paradigm will allow. They want to re-brand software as "content" and they want consumers to willingly buy into that. Their latest sneaky flanking maneuver is what you know as Web apps, but the objective is the same.

    If you say yes to either one, centralized computing or software subscriptions, you're actually saying yes to BOTH.

    Nancy Reagan had the better advice: Just Say No... to both.

    1. Re:Ah, the Big Iron versus micros war again.... by dkf · · Score: 1

      If you say yes to either one, centralized computing or software subscriptions, you're actually saying yes to BOTH.

      I think that tinfoil hat has managed to slip over your eyes.

      For software that's happy on your desktop or laptop, the best place for it is on that desktop/laptop. And right now, the mass market tends to be not keen on rental software (outside gaming, where it seems to be somewhat workable).

      Once you get to the heavier-weight stuff (top-end simulators of various kinds particularly) then prices to buy go up fast. (Why? Because they're difficult to write and the total market isn't that big. Even if the software was open source, it would still be expensive when all costs are accounted for, since the chance is that you'd have to retain a programmer to help.) And you need a lot of processing to support this sort of thing - computational fluid dynamics is ever so thirsty for CPU, and real-life datasets are gigantic - though the exact details of what is the best way to do it will vary according to the exact nature of the code and how it is used (some prefer old-school big-iron, some like high-availability clusters, some are happy with scavenged cycles from lots of systems). All that costs (well, unless you're lucky enough to persuade lots of people to help out like Folding@home, but that's unusual) and that means that the whole service shebang is expensive. And this sort of thing is actually a good candidate for a pay-for on-the-web service, because that lets the service provider take care of all the stupid shitty details of running the app on all sorts of weird setups, rather than forcing every noob through a horrible learning curve; some people like finding out such things, but they're a minority.

      Doing rental access to this sort of thing makes a bunch of sense, but only if the price is right and the software vendor is on board. OTOH, for a small shop who just needs occasional access to the software, this is great. They buy access to what they need, and for less than it would have cost them otherwise. (Otherwise, they actually wouldn't have used simulation at all; they're not in the HPC business, and full licenses to the software that's any good would be a huge fraction of their turnover.)

      In short, Software as Service can work, and so can centralized computing. But not for everything, and there needs to be a market of providers. Right now, the market (such as it is) is terribly dysfunctional, with most service-level agreements looking like bad jokes. (What is it with cloud service providers? Customers can tell if you're trying to give them the shaft...)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    2. Re:Ah, the Big Iron versus micros war again.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      I was of course referring specifically to mass-market off-the-shelf software, not the vertical-market stuff for which licensing and pricing has always been different. There's no tinfoil hat involved, only a lack of specificity.

      I might agree that renting use of software - whether local or remote - for infrequent purposes would be a potentially useful OPTION alongside one-time purchases, but NOT as a complete substitution. That complete substitution is what is trying to be sold as a bill of goods now, under the nickname of "Web apps"; the exact same bill of goods has been evangelized in the past under different names and forms, but always the goal has been that all-or-nothing subscription.

      Do you recall Borland Software and their frequent for-a-small-fee "upgrade" schedule? That was an early precursor to this push for subscriptions. Borland and others found out, however, that people would often say no to the continual procession of upgrades; if the "old" version they had provided sufficient capability, there was no reason to pay for an unnecessary upgrade.

      With Web apps and other forms of subscription software, there's no upgrade to which you can say no. It's all or nothing: you either pay the subscription fee or you don't get the use of the software AT ALL.

      I'd frankly rather see all of it, mass-market or otherwise, evolve to be open source, collectively created, paid-for, and supported.

  25. Has anyone considered the possiblity by HB.3 · · Score: 1

    that we could finally play crysis on this?

  26. I hope we'll show implementation in April by JavaGenosse · · Score: 1

    Our company is planning to present Nvidia based GPGPU solution at Cloud Computing Conference 2009, keep tuned - http://www.cloudslam09.com/ imho, AMD's idea is sound and timely from different points. Those who doubt, just lag behind like SGI did.

  27. Bullshit Stack Overflow by elysiuan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "serve up virtual world games with unlimited photo-realistic detail."

    Considering that CGI effects in movie houses have only started approaching effects indistinguishable from reality within the last five or so years this spikes my bullshit meter pretty high.

    Factor in Weta/IL&M and the rest are using huge render farms for an extremely non-realtime render process and my meter explodes.

    Even if I take the claim at face value and postulate that it is possible to do this then I am forced to wonder about how many concurrent, real-time, 100% realistic scenes it can process at once.

    Sounds like the marketing department wet their pants a bit early on this one.

  28. Videphile-quality cables. by megaditto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, you can. You need to use the correct ethernet cables with high-level tin alloy shielding and vibration elimination: http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    1. Re:Videphile-quality cables. by Megatog615 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're sure that's not a Monster Cable rebrand?

    2. Re:Videphile-quality cables. by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Holy fsck. $500 for a 5 foot long ETHERNET CABLE!?!!? For the "serious audiophile"?!?!?

      (Um, hello? It's DIGITAL?!?!)

      Goes to show, there really IS a sucker born every minute, but at these prices, they'd make out like bandits if they only made 1 sale/week...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:Videphile-quality cables. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Ya, no shit. And to think I might have chose Denon when making my audio receiver purchase.

      Sony is evil in many ways, but at least they offer a good receiver for the money. Their STRDG820 Model goes for $399, and you still save $100 over that damn Denon cable!

      What's next? Acoustical aerosol spray that enhances audio, video, and smells like a new movie theater?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Videphile-quality cables. by mog007 · · Score: 1

      You'd think for 500 bucks, they'd at least use gold, platinum, or uranium for the wires. But it's still just the same old copper ethernet cables I can buy from Home Depot for 1/100th the price.

  29. Re:Apple Computer, The Homosexual's Favorite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    FYI - this troll was stolen directly from http://shelleytherepublican.com/ The whole site is a satire, like a raving mad blog version of Stephen Colbert.

    Read that way, it's pretty funny.

  30. another issue by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

    They say that they want it to do games and 3D animation in a mobile web browser. Call me nuts, but Quake4iPhone takes alot of skill and patience to control reliably...and now they want to try to get Unreal Tournament 5 in that environment? heh. Almost as much fun as doing...basically anything in Maya or 3DS Max from a phone. "desirable" is not quite the first adjective that comes to mind.

  31. Re:Wow, streamed 3D games.. by Anpheus · · Score: 1

    My cellphone has an OpenGL ES rendering engine, as do many of the new generation of smartphones.

    Despite that, I'm willing to bet the problem with this cloud computing engine is not the bandwidth, if they get it worked out, but the latency with the display. It's bad enough playing online and having lag issues. But now I have to wait for my screen to update?

  32. FLOP what? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    1 Petaflop = 10^15 floating-point operations.

    So what happens after it completes those 10^15 floating point operations? Or did the poster mean 1 PetaFLOPS? The S stands for "second" It's not a plural of FLOP!

  33. Practical benifits by cee--be · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One practical use for this would be to run staggeringly complex real-time physics calculations in real time. One example would be doing the necessary calculations to render a physically realistic sea with weather conditions into an animation. You could then send this to users in a sea MMO for example. There are many other cool game related things you could do with it, rather than wastefully rendering some uncanny valley mobile phone game at 2 FPS.

  34. The 1970s? Did I step into a time machine? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I sit down at my dumb terminal, I log in, and now I have access to a central supercomputer (via the network) that does all the processing.

    This AMD idea sounds like something from the 1970s.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  35. What a hype.. by MaGGuN · · Score: 1

    The supercomputer and cloud part is obviously realistic. The gaming part is just marketing hype as it is now, the internet would "break" if everyone played games and watched HD movies over the internet on a large scale. The problem is that given the distance, on top of the latency the distance brings, there is bound to be a bottleneck at some point, from the distributor to the consumer. And that is something internet users even experience today, before people even have begun adopting IPTV and similar. That's why amd's new supercomputer will have traditional supercomputer use before it gets outdated and outpaced. VOD (Video on demand) and perhaps games will need to be offered close to the consumer for good while still. VOD offerings from cable companies is growing, and will likeley keep it's momentum. Games could be competetive, especially more primitive kids/family games as a starter. "All" that's needed, is for cable companies to offer decoders/pvr boxes that support usb devices such as game controllers.

    1. Re:What a hype.. by thexile · · Score: 1

      the internet would "break"

      Yeh just like Googling for Google.

  36. Re:Cloud?! TWO IN ONE DAY? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    It seems the idea has... /sunglasses
    clouded their mind.
    (YEEEAAAH!)

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  37. Revival of the video-arcade by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1


    Plus, wouldn't a 1000 GPU 4870 cloud...only allow some 1000 users some fractional percentage of one 4870 capped by latency and other overhead?

    Earlier in this thread, people were talking about the latency over the general IPv4 internet - but suppose that AMD/ATI could get the price on this thing down to $20,000 or $10,000 - to the point that an entrepreneur could purchase one of these boxes, and a gigabit [or maybe even 10-gigabit] ethernet switch, and some ethernet cabling, and some base stations [with virtual reality goggles & gloves], and set up a salon in a shopping mall, and offer maybe twenty-five teenagers the opportunity to play around together in a virtual world for, say, ten dollars an hour.

    That's $250 an hour revenue [at least during busy hours - weekends, and after school - when the salon might be filled to the brim with bored teenagers], and the entrepreneur would need only 40 such hours to recoup a $10,000 investment, and only 80 such hours to recoup a $20,000 investment.

    Anyway, I made up all these numbers - the real numbers might be more like $100,000 per machine + ethernet + goggles/gloves, and maybe only ten teenagers at a time, but paying more like $25 per hour - I don't know what the exact numbers would be - but the point is that with the local speed of gigabit or 10-gigabit ethernet connected to a local onsite "supercomputer", we might just be seeing the revival of the shopping-mall video-arcades of our formative years.

    PS: And maybe for public health reasons, the entrepreneur would only provide the jacks for the goggles & gloves, with the expectation that the teenagers would bring their own goggles & gloves.

    PPS: Of course, most bowling alleys provide shoe rentals - not sure how exactly they get around the problem of massive outbreaks of athlete's foot fungus, other than spraying the shoes all the time...

    PPPS: But on account of redeye/conjunctivitis, I wouldn't be too crazy about the idea of goggle rentals...

  38. To be fair... by symbolset · · Score: 1

    The cable does include directional markings.

    Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer.

    So, you know, the bits don't get confused and take a wrong turn. I hate it when that happens.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:To be fair... by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      The cable does include directional markings.

      Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer.

      So, you know, the bits don't get confused and take a wrong turn. I hate it when that happens.

      Look at the picture. The arrow points in both directions for the "directional markings" which is completely useless even if such a thing did matter...

    2. Re:To be fair... by symbolset · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah. But the arrows don't point crosswise.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  39. Guilty of pedantry myself, really by symbolset · · Score: 1

    But there comes a time when the common usage outweighs the derivation of a term. Like now.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  40. A Hybrid Future by manoftin · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else agree with me that the future is unlikely to be entirely offloaded, but a hybrid situation? Even the cheapest of phone chipsets will shortly have fairly decent rendering by today's standards. It's not hard to envisage something where a great deal of the processing can be handled by the server, whereas each device does a certain amount of rendering / coping with the immediate 1/10th sec to remove the lag. Somewhere between AMD's ideological future and current MMOs

  41. Fusion Render Cloud? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean 'fusion center' cloud?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----