Slashdot Mirror
FASTRA II Puts 13 GPUs In a Desktop Supercomputer
An anonymous reader writes "Last year tomography researchers of the ASTRA group at the University of Antwerp developed a desktop supercomputer with four NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 graphics cards. The performance of the FASTRA GPGPU system was amazing; it was slightly faster than the university's 512-core supercomputer and cost less than 4000EUR. Today the researchers announce FASTRA II, a new 6000EUR GPGPU computing beast with six dual-GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 graphics cards and one GeForce GTX 275. The development of the new system was more complicated and there are still some stability issues, but tests reveal the 13 GPUs deliver 3.75x more performance than the old system. For the tomography reconstruction calculations these researchers need to do, the compact FASTRA II is four times faster than the university's supercomputer cluster, while being roughly 300 times more energy efficient."
Almost meets the minimum requirements for Crysis 2
This was post #2 and already modded -1, Redundant.
Um...read the article?
The motherboard is a ASUS P6T7 WS Supercomputer.
You must be new here... ;)
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
"the compact FASTRA II is four times faster than the university's supercomputer cluster, while consuming 300 times less power" And the original supercomputer was how fast? 512 cores doesn't say THAT much. I could compare my computer to supercomputers from the past and they'd say the performance of my system was amazing too.
...consuming 300 times less power.
*sigh*
Presently the G200 GPUs in this machine support double-precision, but at about 1/8 the peak rate of single-precision. In practice, since most codes tend to be bandwidth limited, and pointer arithmetic is the same for single and double precision, double-precision performance is usually closer to 1/2 that of single-precision performance, but not always. With the Fermi GPUs to be released early next year, double-precision peak FLOPS will be 1/2 of single-precision peak, just like on present X86 processors. Also note that many scientific research groups, such as my own, have found that contrary to dogma, single-precision is good enough for most of the computation, and that a judicious mix of single and double-precision arithmetic gives high-performance with sufficient accuracy. This is true for some, but not all, computational methods.
First, a gaming card is going to get fast firmware. A workstation card is going to get accurate firmware. I imagine that supercomputer cards would get specialized firmware. (I only skimmed the summary.)
GPUs are excellent at solving certain types of problems and excel at solving matrices. (That's what your video card is doing while it's rendering.) The best part of that is that most, if not all, mathematical problems can be expressed as a matrix, meaning that your super-fast GPU can solve most math problems super-fast.
Next, GPUs love working together since they don't care about what the OS is doing. All they do is take raw data and respond with an answer. Usually we're putting that answer onto the display, since otherwise wtf are we doing with a GPU? In this case, the results are returned instead of using the flashy display. So what you end up with is a set of really fast, specialized, parallel engines solving broken down matrices.
They're also not subject to the marketing whims of Moore's Law, so you can often get faster cards sooner than faster CPUs. To break down a supercomputer so that you get this kind of performance for 4000 EURO is a fantastic achievement. It's almost, but not quite, hobby range. (I'd still put money on someone trying to evolve this into a gaming rig...)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Because it only applies to the kind of problems that CUDA is good at solving. Now while there are plenty of those, there are plenty that it isn't good for. Take a problem that is all 64-bit integer math and has a branch every couple hundred instructions and GPUs will do for crap on it. However a supercomputer with general purpose CPUs will do as well on it as basically anything else.
That's why I find these comparisons stupid. "Oh this is so much faster than our supercomputer!" No it isn't. It is so much faster for some things. Now if you are doing those things wonderful, please use GPUs. However don't then try to pretend you have a "supercomputer in a desktop." You don't. You have a specialized computer with a bunch of single precision stream processors. That's great so long as your problem is 32-bit fp, highly parallel, doesn't branch much, and fits within the memory on a GPU. However not all problems are hence they are NOT a general replacement for a supercomputer.
That was always true of supercomputers. In fact the stuff that runs well on CUDA now is almost precisely the same stuff that ran well on Cray vector machines - the classic stereotype of "Supercomputer"! Thus I do not see your point. The best computer for any particular task will always be one specialized for that task, and thus compromised for other tasks.
BTW, newer GPUs support double precision.