Slashdot Mirror


Asus Releases Desktop-Sized Supercomputer

angry tapir writes "Asustek has unveiled its first supercomputer, the desktop computer-sized ESC 1000, which uses Nvidia graphics processors to attain speeds up to 1.1 teraflops. Asus's ESC 1000 comes with a 3.33GHz Intel LGA1366 Xeon W3580 microprocessor designed for servers, along with 960 graphics processing cores from Nvidia inside three Tesla c1060 Computing Processors and one Quadro FX5800."

47 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    and it's much cheaper and more effective than just using multiple multi-core processors. parallel computing is the future. how long before we have three dimensional processors?

  2. Hrmm by acehole · · Score: 5, Funny

    How many pets would I have to eat to balance out the carbon footprint of this?

    I've got a six-pack of kittens at the ready.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Hrmm by wisty · · Score: 5, Funny

      The PSU is only 1100W. It's not that intensive - three teslas are like three big graphics cards. 2 or 3 kittens would be sufficient, so you've got enough to share.

      Do you have pepper sauce?

    2. Re:Hrmm by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's a modest proposal.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Hrmm by cmiller173 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My old microwave was 1500 watts, the current one is 1300 watts. Wife's hair dryer is 1200 watts. When my 11 year old daughter leaves the bathroom lights on that is 800 watts (8 x 100 watt bulb light bar style fixture). Each Tesla card pulls a maximum of 187.8 Watts per the spec sheet.

    4. Re:Hrmm by mrand · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The PSU is only 1100W

      Only? That's more juice than your microwave (~750 watts), toaster (~1kw), more like a space heater. This thing sucks electricity HARD. A Vaccuum cleaner is about 500-700 watts. I don't think my electric clothes dryer uses as much electricity as this thing, which is using ten times the juice a normal PC uses (or more).

      I doubt you have a single appliance in your house that uses much more electricity than this, and those appliances, unlike a computer, don't run 24/7.

      The pot growers use 650 watt lights. If you get one of these computers, expect to be raided by the DEA when the electric company narcs on you and the DEA sees the heat signature through your walls. They'll have a no-knock warrant, and you'll be lucky if they don't shoot you. They WILL have you face down on the ground with your hands cuffed behind your back. When they find it's a computer and not a pot growing operation, they'll just plant half a pound of dope and arrest you anyway.

      That is, if you survive their entrance. Maybe this will be a good thing, when the DEA starts killing too many innocent people maybe we'll rethink our stupid, insane drug laws.

      Wow. I started counting the number of low estimates in your post and lost track. 1200 Watt microwaves are a dime a dozen. Then we have the 1400 Watt toaster ovens, and 1500 Watt space heaters. And I'm NOT going out of my way to find high numbers... in fact, for every one of these, I quick found items that were considerably more power. We can keep going with your poor estimates: a 4000 Watt clothes dryer and the 180-200 Watt 3 GHz Pentium 4 computer. In fact, the only number you appear to be accurate on is the pot growing (according to Google. I don't like the smell).

      So really, what everyone wants to know is: when did you start growing pot?

            Marc

      --
      -- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
    5. Re:Hrmm by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 3, Informative

      His estimates are bang on, maybe his estimates are european, and yours are american? Cause im european, and i usually see 700-800watt microwaves, and small vacuum cleaners.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
  3. Boinc Applications... by Xin+Jing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a participant in the Milky Way and SETI projects for BOINC, I can say this development is impressive and would be a cruncher's dream come true. It would put supercomputing power in the hands of the everyman and allow applications that rely on distributed computing to take a leap forward.

    1. Re:Boinc Applications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More importantly can this actually run Crysis 2? Probably not.

    2. Re:Boinc Applications... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, as long as that everyman can afford $14,519 for crunching purposes...

      For that price I'd build myself a real virtual reality gaming room.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Boinc Applications... by GungaDan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Once you've got the hookers drunk and coked up, there's seldom any reason to hit them with a blackjack.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  4. Index? by Swoopy · · Score: 3, Funny

    The real question of course is, what the "Windows Vista experience index" of this machine is. If it's anywhere below 5.5 it's obviously not worth the bother.

  5. Super computer? by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ummm isn't this just a ridiculously powerful desktop computer rather than a super computer? The current 500th super computer on the top500 list is this machine which has a Rmax of 17 Tflops and an Rpeak of just over 37.6. Now its impressive that this desktop system has 1/37th of the power of the lowest machine on the super computer list... but does that really make it a super computer? Moore's Law says that it will take around 10 years for this desktop box to evolve to the power of that current bottom top500 box. So in other words its 10 years behind the performance of the current 500th best super computer.

    If its because it hits 1 Tflops then in a few years time you'll have mobile phone "super computers" as Moore's Law is still moving onwards.

    This is a very very fast desktop computer suited to certain simulation elements which are GPU intensive. Nice box, fast box.... but not a real modern super computer.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Super computer? by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, that's easy enough. Just get 38 of these things, hook'em together and MosesJones, you will have #500 on that list!

    2. Re:Super computer? by wisty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Supercomputer" might mean cluster, a big node (to go in a cluster), or big-iron mainframe.

      It's not a cluster, and it's not much of a mainframe, but it has a helluva lot of FLOPS for a single node. To me, it looks similar to the nodes that went into Roadrunner's TriBlades - 2 Opterons (as general purpose processors) plus 4 PowerXCell 8i (for heavyweight vector processing), and a total of 16G memory. But I'm not an expert.

      Still, I bet that if you could hook 3240 of them together, you would have a strong Top500 contender.

    3. Re:Super computer? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please ignore parent comment. I realized the obvious error, stemming from the misinformation in GP comment.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Super computer? by Kumiorava · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Supercomputer is a computer that is one of the most powerful computers available at a given time. Therefore referring top500 list is very valid when determining what is supercomputer and what isn't. Top500 list can very well be used in determining whether we have a supercomputer or not. If the modern computer isn't faster (at least in certain specific tasks) than the lowest performing computer on the list I wouldn't consider it being a supercomputer. I don't understand the need to dilute supercomputer word to include cheap hacks like this, there are valid names for these such as minicomputer. What do we call the best performing computer? superdupercomputer?

    5. Re:Super computer? by textstring · · Score: 2, Informative

      So in other words its 10 years behind the performance of the current 500th best super computer.

      If the top500 list is really a good indicator, this system would have definitely made the 2004/06 list and maybe the 2004/11. You can basically build a 5 year old top 500 supercomputer today for $15k. It would have been top 10 in 1999/06. So it's 10 years from top 10 supercomputer to a personal, desktop "super"-computer but it'll probably take even less time for today's fastest machines to become affordable.

      Also remember this is your personal supercomputer. It's working on your jobs 24/7. And really, 1/40th of current "super"-computer speeds for HPC testing, development and even actual relevant work really isn't that bad. You could get some serious work done of one of these boxes (or any generic box like it).

    6. Re:Super computer? by SuperBigGulp · · Score: 2, Funny

      >but I'm no expert here so I could well be wrong.

      Welcome to Slashdot! You'll fit right it!

      --
      Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
    7. Re:Super computer? by Kumiorava · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, supercomputer is not strictly defined with any of the characteristics other than being one of the most powerful computers available at a given time. We cannot take away 90's supercomputer titles just because current desktops outperform them. Supercomputer is not a term that describes performance, it's all about prestige and engineering prowess to be one of the best in the world.

      This Asus can be technologically more advanced or faster than any supercomputer of 90's but it will never has such prestige. We can talk about high performance workstations and mean around 1 TFLOPS of computing power, but that's about it. We can also compare this Asus to some supercomputer of 90's and say it's more powerful than that, but still it doesn't mean it is supercomputer.

      And all this comes down to the fact that if a computer wants to claim supercomputer title it should be able to be in top500, or at least have comparable performance. Not small fraction of the performance like this Asus has.

  6. But how can you trust the results? by HalfFlat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Tesla c1060 processor boards sound like a very efficient way of packing in compute power, but unless they're neglecting to mention it, the 4GB of GDDR3 RAM each has on board has no error correction. Given the rates of correctable errors observed e.g. here, I could never recommend using it for computing simulations that matter. A flipped bit in a floating point number can have a disproportionate affect on the outcome of calculations that rely upon it, and short of running the whole simulation a second or third time, one couldn't be confident that such an error did not occur.

    Large compute-intensive simulations can take weeks, and are used to justify engineering and business decisions that involve the disposition of large amounts of money and other resources — it is important that the computational part of the process can be relied upon.

    1. Re:But how can you trust the results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a student at the University of Washington and once talked to a representative for Cray about using GPU's a a cheaper supercomputer and he told me that they generally have a nontrivial error rate. The issue with using ECC memory is that the GPU's are also libel for errors within their computations, making the ECC RAM pointless. A weird pixel in one frame of a game is no problem, but an error when performing a large simulation creates problems if the algorithm isn't designed to compensate for that noise.

    2. Re:But how can you trust the results? by mkaushik · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then you would be happy to know that Nvidia's new Fermi chip supports ECC throughout the architecture.

    3. Re:But how can you trust the results? by bertok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Tesla c1060 processor boards sound like a very efficient way of packing in compute power, but unless they're neglecting to mention it, the 4GB of GDDR3 RAM each has on board has no error correction. Given the rates of correctable errors observed e.g. here, I could never recommend using it for computing simulations that matter. A flipped bit in a floating point number can have a disproportionate affect on the outcome of calculations that rely upon it, and short of running the whole simulation a second or third time, one couldn't be confident that such an error did not occur.

      Large compute-intensive simulations can take weeks, and are used to justify engineering and business decisions that involve the disposition of large amounts of money and other resources — it is important that the computational part of the process can be relied upon.

      Which is why the upcoming NVIDIA "Fermi" GPU based boards will support 4GB of ECC memory. Also, they'll have about 2 TFLOPS of single-precision power, and you can stack 4 of them in a box = 8 TFLOPS beside your desk.

      I can't wait until the US government starts banning these things because they could be used by terrorists to design nuclear weapons or something. 8)

    4. Re:But how can you trust the results? by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      Keep in mind that TFLOP is not a single benchmark. There's theoretical peak and then there's actual linpack performance. Single precision is rarely good enough for simulations, they all use double. Naturally, all marketing slicks like to talk about single precision theoretical peak because it's a nice big number, but you'll NEVER actually see that, even in a benchmark. If you're very lucky, your actual practical performance will be in the same neighborhood as the linpack double precision benchmark.

  7. Re:No point running desktop Windows on this monste by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I wouldn't choose to do my scientific computing on Windows, I know some people do, and those Tesla cards (which are providing the bulk of the processing power) really don't care which OS you're running.

    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  8. Not long ago by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Cray T3E-1200E reached 1 teraflops in 1998. Now, we can reach that same level of performance (depending on the app) with a desktop computer. How time flys...

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Not long ago by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We've had over a teraflop of single precision available to consumers in graphics card form for a few years now; the newly released ATI 5870 actually has more than double that in a single chip. Soon the 5870 x2 (with double the performance again) will be out and you'll be able to have multiple of those in one PC.

  9. Re:Shame on US, Chinese companies lead the way by temojen · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are you referring to Republic of China or People's Republic of China? ASUSTek is from Republic of China.

  10. Eat a vacuum cleaner by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

    The PSU is only 1100W. It's not that intensive - three teslas are like three big graphics cards. 2 or 3 kittens would be sufficient, so you've got enough to share.

    1100W? Can I eat my vacuum cleaner instead? Yummy.

    Do you have pepper sauce?

    Pepper sauce? Pepper sauce?!? Do you have any idea what the carbon footprint of pepper sauce is? My brother ate pepper sauce once. He had to eat a whole zoo full of animals to make up for it! Stay away from the sauce!

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Eat a vacuum cleaner by Fred_A · · Score: 5, Funny

      >Pepper sauce? Pepper sauce?!? Do you have any idea what the carbon footprint of pepper sauce is? My brother ate pepper sauce once. He had to eat a whole zoo full of animals to make up for it! Stay away from the sauce!

      But it's *green* pepper !

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  11. WIndows 7 not Vista? by syousef · · Score: 2, Interesting

    processors to attain speeds up to 1.1 teraflops.

    So you're saying it's fast enough to run Windows 7, but forget Vista?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  12. Thats not a super desktop computer idea by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Asustek has unveiled its first supercomputer... by hallux.sinister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...which will be used principly for... typing e-mails and surfing the internet, just like 90+% of other desktop computers... oh yeah, and downloading lots and lots of porn. Way to go, guys! Keep the hits coming!

  14. Re:No point running desktop Windows on this monste by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Informative

    And you're saying this...why? Are you somehow convinced that these processors show up as general purpose CPUs? They don't. There is no conceivable reason something like this "needs" Windows. You're going to have specialized compilers generating specialized code that gets handed off to the GPUs. OS is mostly a non-issue.

  15. Re:No point running desktop Windows on this monste by hherb · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nah - with such processing power, one might actually see a Windows machine perform properly! From boot to blue screen of death in mere milliseconds! Run your malware faster than ever! See clippy dance furiously across the screen in smooth 250 fps animation!

  16. Re:Second Life by polle404 · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...but it still can't run Crysis at full framerate...

    --

    ~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
  17. How about non Floating Point performance ? by Gori · · Score: 4, Insightful

    San somebody who has actually worked with such machines enlighten me about its performance on tasks that are not floating point intensive? Our simulations mainly push many,many objects around, with relatively little, or no floating point math in them.

    Do such machines still make sense, or are we better off with a bunch of general purpose CPUs clustered together? How do they compare to Suns Niagara cpus that have umpteen hardware threads in them ?

    --
    Complexity is a measure of our ignorance...
    1. Re:How about non Floating Point performance ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I work in military research in the UK, we've been building similar machines to this general spec (Xeon/Nehalem/Nvidia Teslas/loads of RAM) for a year of so now. This type of machine is pretty amazing for running our engineering codes; we've achieved a 30x speed up in some cases when compared to a regular high end desktop PC, running a variety of fluid dynamics codes.

      Although it's not a high priority to my management, I personally think the power consumption of the Teslas when compared to regular super computers is the outstanding thing about them. It's like 110W Vs 30Kw! Not to mention they're very portable, and don't require much specialist cooling. You can literally have engineers with 2 terraflops sitting under their desks for £2000, and not have to spend >£30,000 on electricity per year.

      Do such machines still make sense, or are we better off with a bunch of general purpose CPUs clustered together? How do they compare to Suns Niagara cpus that have umpteen hardware threads in them ?

      They're equivalent to "a bunch of general purpose CPUs clustered together", depends on your code.

  18. can it run MATLAB? by nerdyalien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    nice to have powerful machines. But what about the programming end ?

    More specifically, can it run MATLAB or Octave and use all the flops for computations ?

    I think its a known fact that most academia use MATLAB/Octave to do model creation/testing...

    1. Re:can it run MATLAB? by LeDopore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. With Accelereyes and cuda.

      --
      Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
  19. Re:No point running desktop Windows on this monste by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes indeed. Who in their right mind would run anything GPU-intensive on Windows? The platform is well known for having absolutely terrible video drivers. I hear that most manufacturers don't even support the platform, and just expect the community to write drivers!

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  20. Not an Eee! by quenda · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was expecting it to be called the Eee-1. But EEE-niac would have been cool too.

    1. Re:Not an Eee! by Kamineko · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm waiting for the Asus-Apple collaboration, so I can have EEE-Macs.

  21. But... by akeyes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does it run Linux?

  22. Yawn by sluke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While this sort of machine is useful (I just built one for quantum Monte Carlo calculations 6 months ago) it is hardly news. NVIDIA has been pushing this sort of machine since the launch of the Tesla. In fact, they have had a parts list on their website for some time telling exactly what is needed to put together a computer with 4 C1060's. This is not even the first commercial offering of this nature, with companies like appro and microway having similar products for at least a year (see nvidia) for a more complete list.

  23. !Supercomputer by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they can call a custom desktop PC a supercomputer, because it has specs that used to be in the range of supercomputers, then my wristwatch is also a supercomputer.