Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Parallel Processing For Cardiac Simulations Using an Xbox 360

Posted by Soulskill on from the just-watch-out-for-a-literal-red-ring-of-death dept.

Foot-in-Mouth writes "Physorg has an article about a researcher, Dr. Simon Scarle at the University of Warwick's WMG Digital Laboratory, who needed to model some cardiological processes. Conventionally, he would requisition time on a university parallel-processing computer or use a network of PCs. However, Dr. Scarle's work history included gaming industry experience as a software engineer at a company associated with Microsoft Games Studio. His idea was that researchers could use Xbox 360s as an inexpensive parallel computing platform due to the console's hefty parallel processing-enabled GPU. He said, 'Although major reworking of any previous code framework is required, the Xbox 360 is a very easy platform to develop for and this cost can easily be outweighed by the benefits in gained computational power and speed, as well as the relative ease of visualization of the system.'"

7 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Why not the PS3? by yourexhalekiss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I thought everyone used the PS3 for this sort of off-the-shelf supercomputer thing.

    1. Re:Why not the PS3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If he was planning on tailoring the computations for a GPU, the Xbox is the best choice as it has more features for generic data manipulation and more computational power. As mentioned in the summary, ease of development was actually the primary motivator. PS3 fails hands down in this arena.

  2. What about in 5 years? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about in 5 years, or some other point in the future? The advantage of programming for say, x86, etc. is that the hardware will be out there and available for some time, and it will keep getting more clock cycles, etc. However, how long will the X Box be on the market? Will researchers be hunting pawn shops and garage sales in 5 years to replace broken hardware units?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  3. Re:Why not a PC by zaffir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, the case could easily be made that programming a GPU that was NOT meant for general-purpose computing is quite a bit harder than the Cell, which WAS designed with more general-purpose computing in mind. You don't need to port everything required for GPGPU, you just use the libraries and tools developed by IBM for the Cell.

    --
    "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
  4. Because it's an advetorial, perhaps? by david_craig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's really a publicity stunt from Microsoft trying to get the Xbox360 in the forefront of peoples minds in the lead up to Christmas.

    The article reads like most of the marketing cover I see from Microsoft (and for that matter most other software companies).

    Organisation X needed to do Y but the competing product was too expensive (in price/effort/time). Our product does Y at a fraction of the price/time/effort of our competitor.

    The people at Orgaisation X are smart people who know all about Y and are very happy with our product.

    1. Re:Because it's an advetorial, perhaps? by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do cardiovascular research scientists buy much of their research equipment for Christmas?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  5. Re:isn't this somewhat boring? by olsmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this process can be regarded as being Turing complete then we have to regard a cell membrane, or even a simple mix of chemicals as being able to compute. And to be able to compute anything.

    I can compute anything, given enough time. Part of my computational process may even involve designing a computer to speed the process and giving it specific instructions on what to do, and then waiting for a result.