Slashdot Mirror


China Makes World's Fastest Supercomputer

shmG writes "China has replaced the United States as the maker of the world's fastest supercomputer. A Chinese research center has made the world's faster super computer — named as Tianhe-1A, which was released at a national conference on high-performance computers (HPC) in China. Made at a cost of over $88 million, Tianhe-1A is theoretically able to do more than 1 quadrillion calculations per second (one petaflop) at peak speed. Tianhe-1A 's peak performance reaches 1.206 petaflops, and it runs at 563.1 teraflops (1,000 teraflops is equal to one petaflop) on the Linpack benchmark."

222 comments

  1. Does it run Linux? by fluffy99 · · Score: 3, Funny

    But does it run (Red Flag) Linux?

    1. Re:Does it run Linux? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      But does it run (Red Flag) Linux?

      And can it run *Flash?



      * run Flash without using > 50% of the CPU's

    2. Re:Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And can it run *Flash...

      In *Firefox?



      * for more than two hours without screeching to a halt.

    3. Re:Does it run Linux? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Is Flash multi-threaded (-cored?) now?

      If not I assume: Yes.

      They day it's is the day surfing the web will suck even more.

    4. Re:Does it run Linux? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      If it runs Linux, yes

      FF on Windows sucks

    5. Re:Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Flash multi-threaded (-cored?) now?

      Yes. From Adobe's forums:

      Flash player 10 supports pixel bender kernels (programs) that can run as a filter, blend mode or a background job. A pixel bender kernel running as a background job (ShaderJob) runs on a true thread (rather than a PseudoThread) and is therefore faster. The only disadvantage here is that your background job must be programmable in pixel bender's language, Hydra.

      They day it's is the day surfing the web will suck even more.

      Hello tomorrow!

    6. Re:Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't have to worry about kernel exploits on Windows? Also, isn't having to download random applications from the web less secure than from a package manager with signed packages?

      I'm not saying don't use Windows, but security should not be your main motivation for using it.

    7. Re:Does it run Linux? by daem0n1x · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is it? We're still waiting for the Roman Empire to come back. If your "cycle" is as long as theirs, prepare yourselves for some very, very long times in the toilet.

    8. Re:Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does it run (Red Flag) Linux?

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these Tianhe-1A's!

    9. Re:Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, i was imagining a genghis khan cluster of these.

    10. Re:Does it run Linux? by p1esk · · Score: 1, Interesting

      what's MenuetOS right tool for?

    11. Re:Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      killing niggers

      Nah, I'm just kidding, it is really good for learning assembly and OS design though.

    12. Re:Does it run Linux? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "You don't have to worry about kernel exploits on Windows?"

      Nope, as that machine doesn't get internet access!

      Right tool for the job, as I stated.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:Does it run Linux? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      ASM programming. All of my horticultural controllers run on an embedded x86 platform.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:Does it run Linux? by kanguro · · Score: 0

      Don't you dare to compare that contraption of immigrant's country with the Roman Empire!!

    15. Re:Does it run Linux? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      why modded funny? better news articles will tell one that, yes it indeed runs a variant of Linux

      might be Red Flag, that's what I'm trying to find out

  2. Doping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they used Doped Transistors ;)

  3. Is this a feat of ingenuity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using an army of cheap, disposable labor. The microprocessors, of course.

  4. Good on the Chinese by Third+Position · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is the bitch-slapping the US needs to pull it's head out of it's ass, and start doing the things it needs to do to be seriously competitive again.

    Meh. Who am I kidding?

    --
    American Third Position
    Finally, a real choice!
    1. Re:Good on the Chinese by hsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, lets borrow more money from the Chinese Government so we can build a useless supercomputer to outdo them - just to say we did it! Thanks, grandkids!

    2. Re:Good on the Chinese by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sadly, China needed to build this computer simply to calculate the interest on the US debt in realtime.

    3. Re:Good on the Chinese by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      Where did I use the word "government"?

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    4. Re:Good on the Chinese by aliquis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are you suggesting?

      Growing population by a factor of 5?

      Decrease salaries?

      Spend lots of the money on small high image projects while most of the rest of the country remain poor?

      I do understand that they will eventually catch up, but in the mean time you Americans are way ahead of the average Chinese.

    5. Re:Good on the Chinese by jgagnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hint: cynics don't require facts to be cynical.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    6. Re:Good on the Chinese by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Competitive in what, exactly? We have many supercomputers in the USA; we have no idea what to do with them, though, and many of them are spending a lot of time idle. Some supercomputers are now being rented out to investors, because the people the computers were built for -- the scientists -- are not using enough computer time.

      What we really need to do is look at the state of research in this country. Also, maybe if we had a more solid economic base, one in which we solve the trade imbalance by exporting real goods rather than copyrights, we could spend more money on science and supercomputing. Oh well, in your words, "who am I kidding?"

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:Good on the Chinese by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      This is something that used to bug me, but then I realized something important. I just do like a large amount of other people from unstable regions have done for the last 30 years, and flee like a rat from a sinking ship. The US fails and I just get a tech job in a different (and much more stable) country. I work for a multinational corporation: Transfers are nontrivial, but relatively easy. It's more a question of motivation.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    8. Re:Good on the Chinese by hsmith · · Score: 1

      I don't really see what company would make the investment - for what? There are plenty of supercomputers in the US already. If they needed to perform some processing, they would leverage those existing investments for a lot less than what building their own would cost - or they would use the chinese one because it is the "fastest" for the time being. There is little incentive to "build one because the chinese have a faster one" in the commerical market.

    9. Re:Good on the Chinese by dbet · · Score: 1

      We're already using the money we borrow from China to protect Asia from China.

    10. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately for them, they don't know how to use proper cable management. It kinda reminds me of this disaster. Guess it's par for the course when you compare it to an old Cray-1.

    11. Re:Good on the Chinese by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is nothing useless about a supercomputer. Oak Ridge National Lab has over a billion dollar budget each year and huge portions of that budget relies on the availability of high performance computing resources. (Not to mention all the other national labs) HPC supports research in areas like energy conservation, new power sources, bioinformatics, material science, weapons simulations, engineering, and computer science. Applications range from freeing ourselves of fossil fuel reliance to designing materials to be used in [insert next big product]. HPC is the reason we don't need to do nuclear weapon testing anymore. HPC is the reason our grandkids will have a longer average lifespan. I can guarantee that these machines wouldn't be built for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars if they weren't being used. And I can guarantee that when the US regains #1, it won't be for the sake of being #1... it will be for the necessity of furthering science that benefits us all.

    12. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Oh snap!

    13. Re:Good on the Chinese by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      I saw an ad that says - in a menacing voice - "and now they for for us - and I thought, Isn't that exactly what is supposed to happen? The Chinese have been collecting dollars and not contributing to demand - exactly what is needed is for China to spend and put US companies to work, Well, here it is: US working for them, Intel and nvidia making some coin, paying some employees who pay some taxes, in a virtuous circle.

    14. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL Classic!!

    15. Re:Good on the Chinese by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "weapons simulations"

      Useless, that is.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    16. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've kinda got it right. The borrowed money will be used for "...soup or computer...".

    17. Re:Good on the Chinese by mlts · · Score: 1

      Since when did supercomputers become useless? They might not be as mainstream as bygone days when supercomputers in the past were the only things that could render stuff well for cool pictures, but they have a critical need in a lot of research, especially complicated models with a ton of variables to consider. Most variables are floating point calculations so the average integer processing unit wouldn't help much.

      Of course, a supercomputer won't be that great at regular integer stuff (if you want your BSD or Linux kernel to build in 1-2 seconds, you need integer CPU, as well as big, fast I/O to do all the fetching/storing.) However, if your livelihood is MFLOPS and not MIPS, supercomputers are definitely still relevant.

    18. Re:Good on the Chinese by mikeru22 · · Score: 1

      Eh, they come to the US to learn how to do these kinds of things in our universities and then leave. I suppose we should encourage them to stay here a little longer by charging credit towards our debt to China if they are planning to leave the country within 5 years after graduation.

      --
      Go study.
    19. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the two companies who do have faster Hyper-Computers are both US.. They are the CIA and The FBI. Strangely tho they don't trumpet they're achievement's.

    20. Re:Good on the Chinese by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Useless supercomputer?

      I think you're on the wrong site...

    21. Re:Good on the Chinese by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      HPC is the reason our grandkids will have a longer average lifespan.

      Then why isn't ours the longest in the world? Yes, supercomputing is very important for all sorts of scientific research, including medicine, but if you want a longer average lifespan, simply make workplaces less dangerous and give all of us good health care, like the nations with longer lifespans than ours have.

    22. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... We have many supercomputers in the USA; ... and many of them are spending a lot of time idle.

      Would you care to provide some proof of this claim?
      I've never worked on a supercomputer that wasn't busy most of the time.

    23. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... the scientists -- are not using enough computer time.

      What most scientists need supercomputers for nowadays is for processing the huge data streams that are being produced continuously by modern scientific experiments. Getting such data streams to a remote supercomputer is a huge bottle neck, well beyond the capabilities of the internet, making it faster to simply process the data a little slower on less-capable home grown clusters. Also, a given supercomputer will only be fast for certain classes of problems, whereas one can build a home-grown cluster of computers and FPGAs that is designed specifically for the needs of an experiment.

    24. Re:Good on the Chinese by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      Regardless of its perceived usefulness, I'd take weapons simulations over weapons testing any day.

    25. Re:Good on the Chinese by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the US gov that built the largest sky scrapers in the world, yet they were all built in the US until recently... who built them? Chrysler... Sears... etc.

      Companies most certainly do need massive supercomputers. Oil companies are a good target, and Exxon happens to be the largest corp in the world.

      As to using surplus supercomputers being cheaper... well supercomputers tend to be rather task specific. Additionally, since you're completely generalizing, i'd have to say you're making that up on the spot and haven't got the slightest clue whether its true or not.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    26. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..They are the CIA and The FBI. Strangely tho they don't trumpet they're achievement's.

      Jesus and Mary, dear sweet motherfucker of Christ. If you don't know how to use apostrophes, DON'T FUCKING USE THEM. Is that so fucking hard?

    27. Re:Good on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We have many supercomputers in the USA; we have no idea what to do with them,"
      [...]
      "What we really need to do is look at the state of research in this country."

      True. But this also speaks to how stupid the entirety of our system is. We can't even prioritize our supercomputer power. That's a serious management and policy issue, which will always come first before any research concerns (since any research that stems from that will be crap due to logistical nightmares). Screw the research, we can't even figure out what to do with massive parallel computing power that most other industries would pay to get access to.

      How, there's probably some hobby renderer out there that's thinking, "Damn, 5 minutes on that thing and my project would be DONE." Or a pharm company thinking something similar on some modeling question.

      Maybe you have no one that can think of problems to run on the system, because the access to such systems are restricted in the first place, and most people have left government work to go to private industry because of stupid roadblocks the government placed on their research.

      Really. We can't came up with managers and policies that allow private businesses to buy some cpu time? A decent prioritizing table, like government, scientists, private industry scientists, entertainment, individuals, coupled with the last 3 and what'd they'd pay for the computing time over the base cost to run the system? Come on.

  5. Worthless stunt by gweihir · · Score: 0, Troll

    The time for "supercomputers" is long past. This is just muscle-play that does not mean anything. The fetish of having a "supercomputer" seems to be a left-over from the times when computers were very slow and almost nobody had one. Or maybe politicians (and journalists) are still living in those times...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Worthless stunt by grajzor · · Score: 1

      This is what the rukept telling themselves during the Cold War.

    2. Re:Worthless stunt by AigariusDebian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Serious research still needs much faster supercomputers than we have now. All kinds of science - from artificial intelligence to weather modeling to astrophysics to genetic research to nuclear simulations. Access to a powerful supercomputer is a major boon for academia in the country.

    3. Re:Worthless stunt by stiggle · · Score: 1

      Or they're using them for complex modelling - like everyone else who has one uses them for.

    4. Re:Worthless stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's hilarious. Who writes your material?

    5. Re:Worthless stunt by think_nix · · Score: 1

      If your definition of supercomputer is an old yellow box with the turbo button then yes. Otherwise you are just plain retarded.

    6. Re:Worthless stunt by vbraga · · Score: 3, Informative

      As someone whose works depends on HPC I disagree with you. A lot of people in life sciences, materials science, nuclear physics, geophysics and other knowledge areas needs clusters and super computers.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    7. Re:Worthless stunt by CubicleView · · Score: 1
      From the article

      The battle to build the fastest supercomputer has become a sort of national pride as these high performance computers are used in a variety of areas like defense, energy, finance, science. They are also used for drug discovery, hurricane and tsunami modeling, cancer research, car design, even studying the formation of galaxies. For example, oil companies use supercomputers to find reservoirs, while Wall Street traders use it for speedy automated trades.

      Everyone knows that you can do all of the above on a simple netbook

    8. Re:Worthless stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot and I take offense that slashdot even allows you to post. When did the commentary go full retard here? It's never been exactly meaningful discussion, but when did you guys just give up completely?

    9. Re:Worthless stunt by Aquina · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but this is not correct! Please have a look at the TOP500 to see for yourself what these machines actually compute. Unless you're not an IT professional I tell you there are things you cant achieve with a hommade cluster of PS3's or something thelike. Supercomputers from Cray for eg.g have a very specialized BUS to transfer data between units. It's not possible to have the same rates by simply connecting ordinary PCs via ethernet. You need special transport systems (BUS), special boards, management capabilities, enclosures, operating systems, etc. to do the really big computing. Think about weather prediction, the calculation of climate models or e.g. media analysis and distributed compiling.

    10. Re:Worthless stunt by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we went to the moon during a period of nationalist chest thumping, and when the nationalist chest thumping subsided, we haven't been back. countries that are interested in nationalist chest thumping: china, india, etc, are still pumping up their space programs

      what i am saying is, for all the evils of nationalism, scientific advancement in the realm of large projects seems to be a positive byproduct

      for example, if we were still in a cold war with the ussr in the 1990s, i will bet you anything that this would have been completed and would be producing amazing science at this point in time:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    11. Re:Worthless stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's what you say, when you lose.

    12. Re:Worthless stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a researcher using (US&European) supercomputers for high-performance numbercrunching, I strongly disagree. Some of the calculations take so much time that if I had to run it on one single (powerfull) CPU, I could probably do one big calculation in my entire PhD... Nevermind that by the time it was finished, the hardware would be long obsolete, and its not possible to fit the data in a single computer's memory anyway. So for some tasks, large/powerfull & shared computer resources really makes sense.

      But of course, computers, electronic calculators, abacus'es, and pen&paper isn't strictly neccessary. Get off my stone-garden so I can carve my calculations on it!

    13. Re:Worthless stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article

      The battle to build the fastest supercomputer has become a sort of national pride as these high performance computers are used in a variety of areas like defense, energy, finance, science. They are also used for drug discovery, hurricane and tsunami modeling, cancer research, car design, even studying the formation of galaxies.

      For example, oil companies use supercomputers to find reservoirs, while Wall Street traders use it for speedy automated trades.

      Everyone knows that you can do all of the above on a simple netbook

      Sure you can. You just do it in the cloud.

    14. Re:Worthless stunt by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Watch it... he has a botnet of Atari 2600's that will DDOS your ass.

      Or something.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    15. Re:Worthless stunt by Sarten-X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does research still need supercomputers, though? If you're writing a program parallelized enough to split across tens of thousands of processing units, why not go with a full cluster, like the vaunted Hadoop or EC2?

      I think the time for a single powerful machine is long past. Maintaining the level of interconnection between the nodes is expensive, and we can do better. In the words of Dr. Ken Batcher, "A supercomputer is a device for turning compute-bound problems into I/O-bound problems." With distributed storage (like HDFS) coupled to the distributed processing (like Hadoop), we can turn those same problems into merely cost-bound problems.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    16. Re:Worthless stunt by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      There will always be problems that require large amounts of computing power. In some cases, increases in computing power make previously unworkable problems feasible to throw a computer at.

      Just because today's PCs are more powerful than older supercomputers doesn't mean there is going to be demand for capabilities at the upper end of the computing power spectrum.

      In this case - A large number of the top computers in the world are used for nuclear weapons simulations. (You can't test them any more due to test ban treaties, so you have to simulate them.) So China ramping up their computing power is a bit scary. Note that it was apparently created by a "University for Defense Technology" of some sort.

      (Note: I can't read TFA, as it appears to be trying to give me a popup ad, but the big square covering the article is blank and has no close button. However I've seen one or two smaller articles regarding this new system.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    17. Re:Worthless stunt by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nearly all of these supercomputers are just that - VERY large clusters.

      Although in many cases they have specialized communications backplanes for communications between nodes with capabilities (such as low latency) that can't be achieved with geographically distributed clusters. (Note the mention of parts from Intel and Nvidia, combined with undefined "domestic" communications silicon.)

      Also note that geographic distribution leads to all sorts of information assurance nightmares when you're simulating nukes...

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    18. Re:Worthless stunt by byteherder · · Score: 1

      "Does research still need supercomputers, though?"

      Yes, lots of good, interesting research still going on.

      If you think clusters or Hadoop or map reduce or EC2 or cloud computing is going to solve the problems that supercomuter tackle you will be waiting around for a very long time.

      "A supercomputer is a device for turning compute-bound problems into I/O-bound problems."Some problems are compute bound, some are memory bound, some are I/O bound. Supercomputers attempt to addresses this for the largest of these types of problems. Distributed storage or distributed process like Hadoop does not solve this except for the most trivial of supercomputer-class problem. There is still a need for supercomputers.

    19. Re:Worthless stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha corporate america is in a cold war with the citizens of america :) copyright, derivatives - all to make the rich richer and the middle class poor

    20. Re:Worthless stunt by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      well if its a war, lets start fighting back

      implicit in your statement is that citizens are somehow helpless against corporations. hardly

      don't lay down and take it, stand up and fight back, if at least only to preserve your self-respect

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    21. Re:Worthless stunt by wondafucka · · Score: 1

      The time for "supercomputers" is long past. This is just muscle-play that does not mean anything. The fetish of having a "supercomputer" seems to be a left-over from the times when computers were very slow and almost nobody had one. Or maybe politicians (and journalists) are still living in those times...

      False. 1) Protien Folding Simulations (and any number of chemical / biological simulations). 2) Prestige attracts money and brainpower.

      Stunt, yes. You could make several smaller "super computers" to have equivalent output. Worthless no.

    22. Re:Worthless stunt by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Serious research still needs much faster supercomputers than we have now. All kinds of science - from artificial intelligence to weather modeling to astrophysics to genetic research to nuclear simulations. Access to a powerful supercomputer is a major boon for academia in the country.

      Whether serious research needs faster computers, is up for debate. Personally I think it mostly needs researchers that know how to program. But even if faster computers are needed, then the needed ones are not of the supercomputer type.

      I hope you realize that "FLOPS" are entirely useless for AI. On the other front, these "supercomputers" give you very little "FLOP" for the buck.

      It is not a boon. It is a waste of money, done in order for some people to build themselves a monument.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    23. Re:Worthless stunt by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And to add to that, if you are I/O bound, you are screwed anyways, and even more so with this "supercomputer", as it has an overkill of local processing power in the nodes that will easily saturate any backplane. Graphics-card based computations make only sense if you are _not_ I/O bound. But in this case a cloud is far better than one monolithic system.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:Worthless stunt by mlts · · Score: 1

      Depends on the task at hand. If something is infinitely parallizable such as a ray-trace where a screen can have subsets of pixels be handed off to other cores, CPUs, or separate discrete computers, just chucking more blades in a rack will do the job.

      But not all tasks can be broken up into bits that don't depend on each other. There are tasks such as various types of modeling which require step "A" to be done before step "B" can be handed out, and even with the best of technology, if a box had 1000 cores, these tasks would only run as fast as one lone core.

      Super computers (just like mainframes) still have their place. They are not as awesome as in the past because of the compute power available to the average person, but they are still needed.

    25. Re:Worthless stunt by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      Whether serious research needs faster computers, is up for debate. Personally I think it mostly needs researchers that know how to program. But even if faster computers are needed, then the needed ones are not of the supercomputer type.

      You have no idea what you're talking about. There will always be a need for lots of computational power connected by networks with lots of bandwidth. A supercomputer isn't "super" because of the flops. It's "super" because of the network and the software.

      --

    26. Re:Worthless stunt by mlts · · Score: 1

      The issue is I/O. CPU power is one thing. However, getting the data up the storage hierarchy to the CPU and back down again is where people pay the big bucks for real machines and not just fire up stacks of x86 boxes if they have some serious tasks.

      This can be explained in a simple way: Build the latest Linux or BSD kernel. The time it takes to build one either has stayed the same, or actually has gotten longer than in times past (when one ran a kernel build of that time on that time's computers). Why is that, even though CPU power should be going up exponentially? I/O is not improving as fast as CPU numbers. It is improving, but it isn't doubling as often. So, even though the CPU is snappy, it still sits there waiting for the fetches from disk, to RAM, finally to the registers. Cache helps ease this pain, but I/O is still the bottleneck for a lot of tasks. If this was not the case, it would take less than a second to rebuild a kernel from a make clean.

      CPU is cheap; I/O is expensive, relatively.

    27. Re:Worthless stunt by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      cientific advancement in the realm of large projects seems to be a positive byproduct

      No. Please just stop speculating. Supercomputing is not driven by the TOP500. It's driven by agencies that do real scientific research. We're not pumping out flops and GB/s to make the TOP500. We're doing it because our scientists need it.

      --

    28. Re:Worthless stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't try to sound cool, you moron. There's a little known technique called encryption. It works.

  6. Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me Chinese, me play joke, me put petaflop in, er, wait that doesn't work so well...

  7. How much stolen technology is inside? by AardvarkCelery · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's hard to get too excited about technological advances in a country that aggressively steals from the US, Japan, Europe and anybody else that has technology that they think would be nice to have.

    It reminds me of the announcement of a new Chinese submarine a while back, where the critical technology had been stolen from the US through espionage.

    If it turns out they made this system honestly, then I'll gladly congratulate them. However, their record on intellectual integrity so far is pretty dismal.

    1. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stolen? I don't know. Purchased? From the article:

      Tianhe-1A is powered by 7,168 Nvidia Tesla M2050 graphics processor units (GPUs) and 14,336 Intel Xeon central processing units (CPUs).

      So unless Nvidia and Intel have reported 20,000 or so stolen processors lately, I wouldn't worry too much.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by AardvarkCelery · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Washington Times (reprint): U.S. secrets aboard latest Chinese sub
      http://www.taiwandc.org/washt9908.htm

      Popular Mechanics: How China Steals U.S. Military Secrets
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/3319656

      San Francisco Chronicle: China's war on the U.S. economy
      http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-15/opinion/17828392_1_security-review-commission-china-s-internet-currency-manipulation

      Wired: Good Old Fashioned Espionage
      http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2010/07/good-old-fashioned-industrial-espionage/

    3. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by anegg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So far the numbers have not been independently verified, correct?

    4. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Steal?!?

      INTEL, IBM, and other high tech firms have been sending their R&D, engineering and other high up on the job food chain jobs over there and to India. They have been building up expertise in other countries. Of course this happened.

      We the US will become a technological backwater. Of course the pundits will say shit like "American kids just aren't studying science and engineering" or "It's our education system."

      The answer is: why should a bright kid go into science or engineering when he won't be able to get a job? Whereas, if he goes into medical, he's pretty much guaranteed a very nice living.

      It's not the education system; it's the market. The market here in the US is saying that engineering and science careers just aren't worth as much as others and it's saying that there are plenty of qualified and cheaper engineers overseas - all thanks to US companies moving there.

      As we are seeing NOW, the Chinese and Indians no longer need American companies - they don't need IBM or whoever to come in a spend the millions setting up shop. They can do that themselves now thank you very much. End result: US based companies will be sidelined.

      So kids, apply to foreign firms because US based companies have made themselves irrelevant.

      And business owners, bypass the middlemen (IBM and whatnot) and buy direct from their suppliers in India and China - you'll save the costs of over paid American management and sales people.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    5. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by quatin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, like this doesn't go both ways. At least they didn't start bribing/kidnapping our scientists to make "Dooms Day" devices in a hidden lair in the desert, like we did with the Germans in the Manhattan project.

      Also that Washington Times article is way out of date. The proceedings of the Wen Hoo Lee trial (accused of stealing the W88 warhead for China) embarrassed public officials to the point where Bill Clinton had to issue an apology and the US government had to pay an undisclosed settlement to Lee.
      The fact was US military research bases had slack handling protocols for classified documents. This was glaringly obvious as the cause of all the leaked secrets. However, to save their careers, the managers made Lee a scapegoat. Turns out it was common practice to take classified documents to work on at home. The only reason Lee was singled out for it was, because he was Asian.

    7. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by athe!st · · Score: 1

      Germans on the Manhattan project wat? I think you mean building rockets and leading NASA

    8. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      "the costs of over paid American management and sales people."

      and there's the key. the U.S. is the victim of its own isolated success. All of a sudden its no longer isolated (a la The World Is Flat), and the jobs move to cheaper venues.

      I did just read an article about certain aspects of Indian cost of living increasing in accordance with the shift in jobs. We just aren't worth what we say we are, and the market correction is taking a long time.

    9. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I've said for years that education is nice. Its good to be all qualified and whatnot, but if there is not job for you to do, then it all goes down the shitter. Where I live, you can get educated in anything you want. Super! Great! Except that right after getting the paper, you are unemployed. And you stay unemployed. And the few putsy jobs around don't need any of that. And they won't pay for any of that. I don't feel bad for the sidelined American companies. I don't give the slightest shit about their stock holders. The stock holders got greedy, sold America and Americans out. Now the only thing the country has left to export is paper. Oh, I have a copyright. Oh, I have a patent. And if those countries suddenly see those worthless pieces of paper as being worthless, then suddenly Oh, my paper is useful only for wiping my butt. Damn! Now its clogged the toilet! And in an ironic twist, the sell outs get sold out.

    10. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by mlts · · Score: 1

      This rings quite true, although it is slowly changing. Here in the US, you can get out of college with a fresh CS or scientific degree from a good university... and end up sitting on your duff for years waiting tables until you find something relevant. A simialr student who finishes up a generic major in college, then passes the bar exam in their state, will never see an unemployment line in their lifetime.

      Until this is changed, Americans will see the cool electronic stuff only appearing in China and India first, just like the cool smartphones end up only in Japan or Korea and never make their way across the pond. Same with Internet stuff. Bandwidth in most parts of the US is actually shrinking, while in virtually every other nation, companies are busy laying fiber or putting up wireless towers.

    11. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is _already_ a technological backwater (along with other Western countries). I think of us as being a bit like the Eloi in "The time machine".

    12. Re:How much stolen technology is inside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, all those Jews on the Manhatten project would have rather been home building a bomb for Hitler...

  8. Fastest Train and Computer are in China by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the fastest social and economic downturn is in America...coincidence?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean to say, if we had a faster train and super computer, then the economy would right itself.

    2. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      science is for left wing nazi-commis.

    3. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      Would there be a benefit to putting the fastest computer in the fastest train?

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    4. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      And the fastest social and economic downturn is in America...coincidence?

      Yeah, but this is just their firewall. Wait until you see the systems behind it.

      As for the China's climb to the top, everyone hated U.S. policies were the big dog. Well, I hope those folks enjoy the ride down, cause it will not be pretty. I'd rather be on the top of the hill and hated, then be nice and shit all over.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    5. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Actually you might not be that much wrong :)

      Just look at the history :)

      Nazi Germany had weak science?

      Communism was bad for science progress?

      War obviously is awesome for some science ;D, gives a reason to spend more on R&D I guess.

      Of course you could do that without wars to.

    6. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Klync · · Score: 1

      Would there be a benefit to putting the fastest computer in the fastest train?

      Hmmm.... if the train was going fast enough for relativistic effects to kick in, then this would make the computer *even faster*. You, sir / ma'am, are brilliant!

      --

      ----
      Not to be confused with Col.
    7. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Walterk · · Score: 1

      Well, the do need a fast computer to do all that filtering for dissidents.

    8. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      China is developing country where as the US is a developed one.

      It's much easier to invest and build infrastructure where none exists in the first place (clean slate) than it is to uproot your existing stuff and replace it with newer. For the later, it's also much more difficult to justify the future break-even point of such an investment. People want results NOW over and beyond a simple TCO calculation.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And the fastest social and economic downturn is in America...coincidence?

      You're right! Clearly America needs a heavy dose of green tea and innards, stat!

    10. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh my. When have I heard this before? Oh yes, back in the 1980s when there was panic and hyperbole over Japan, Inc. overtaking the USA in everything. How did that pan out exactly? I don't see how the current situation with China is any different.

    11. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the fastest social and economic downturn is in America...coincidence?

      Well, it would be a coincidence if it were true, but it's not. US GDP growth is a bit better than the average among the advanced/developed economies. Germany, Japan, UK, Russia and many others have had it much worse.

      Many smaller countries have had it so much worse than the US that it's almost mind-blowing. A New York Times article with some pretty graphs illustrates this.

    12. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Well for starters, look at the size of China vs. Japan...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Japan is an island. China is not an island.

      Japan is the size of Montana with the population of California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania (127M)

      China is about the same size as the United States with a population four times higher.

      You don't see the difference?

    14. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the shipyards on the Clyde... oh wait, you can't.

    15. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by ProfBooty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Japan also did not have the level of poverty that China does.

      China won't be going away, if anything changes they will have to start to focus on satisfying domestic markets. Heck thats the reason western companies want to get into the Chinese market and not just take advantage of chinese labour.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    16. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      Oh my. When have I heard this before? Oh yes, back in the 1980s when there was panic and hyperbole over Japan, Inc. overtaking the USA in everything. How did that pan out exactly? I don't see how the current situation with China is any different.

      Yea, back in the 80's we in the USA were worried that Japan would outcompete us in automobiles, semiconductors and consumer electronics. The way it panned out, we have virtually no semiconductor and electronics industries left. The automobile industry still hasn't (and may never) recover from Japanese competition.

    17. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by j_mcc99 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... if the train was going fast enough for relativistic effects to kick in, then this would make the computer *even faster*. You, sir / ma'am, are brilliant!

      Actually, relativistic effects would cause the computer to run slower and slower the faster it traveled.

    18. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by demonbug · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... if the train was going fast enough for relativistic effects to kick in, then this would make the computer *even faster*. You, sir / ma'am, are brilliant!

      Actually, relativistic effects would cause the computer to run slower and slower the faster it traveled.

      What if we throw it in reverse?

    19. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my. When have I heard this before? Oh yes, back in the 1980s when there was panic and hyperbole over Japan, Inc. overtaking the USA in everything. How did that pan out exactly? I don't see how the current situation with China is any different.

      That part is true, US economy GDP even today is at $14 Trillion dollars, China's is at $4 Trillion, still has a ways to go.

    20. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      China is way different from Japan. For starters, it has resources, and it can play the game any way it wants to. Japan could only play hardball economically. China can at any time choose to overrun Korea and Taiwan at any time if they choose to, and the only recourse would either be a hard fought conventional war, or a nuclear exchange.

      China can fight dirty. Japan cannot. And China is good at fighting dirty, because they "won" two wars (Korea and Vietnam) by proxy, sending in men and materials to do what the native population couldn't. If China chose to, they could easily turn up the heat in other areas hostile to the US by sending in troops and munitions. China could hand Iran the tools to seize control of the Strait of Hormuz and there would be nothing the US could do about it except engage in another theater of war which would be unwinnable.

    21. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > China can at any time choose to overrun Korea and Taiwan at any time if they choose to, and the only recourse would either be a hard fought conventional war, or a nuclear exchange.

      China's current success is entirely economic based, which vanishes into the void immediately if they start WW3 and their factories and power plants start getting bombed and the world isn't buying their stuff anymore. They're net importers of food and fuel, too, which means if they go to war, people stop selling them those supplies and they start starving. Or, phrased another way, even if it wins, China still loses.

      > And China is good at fighting dirty, because they "won" two wars (Korea and Vietnam) by proxy, sending in men and materials to do what the native population couldn't.

      Wars fought 40-60 years ago say very little about how the same nations would fight wars today. Plus, you could very easily argue that China lost both those wars. Free South Korea is thriving economically, and competing against China in many markets, whereas North Korea is essentially a failed state that China is forced to prop up to save face. China basically has to park an army on the border just to handle refugee problems.

      As for Vietnam, a couple years after the truce with the US, the North took over the South, then tried to boot China from Cambodia. China invaded Vietnam. China *lost*. That's one of the reasons that you don't hear the Chinese brag about either of the two countries today. (It's probably also part of why Vietnam and the US are on pretty good terms today; we fought there, but we were obviously not there to take over like the French and Japanese before or the Chinese after.)

    22. Re:Fastest Train and Computer are in China by rainhill · · Score: 1

      Ignorant statement.

      China is ten-times the size of japan, and five-times the size of US.

      This is the difference.

  9. Copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy, what did they copy now...

  10. Computerized at last by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Finally they will be able to computerize the national census procedures.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Computerized at last by aliquis · · Score: 1
  11. This may be a net positive... by ultraexactzz · · Score: 1

    I mean, who ever expected that Skynet would speak Chinese?

    --
    Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
    1. Re:This may be a net positive... by presearch · · Score: 1

      Joss Whedon.

  12. I have a prediction by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

    After observing Red Flag, Loongson, and the basic nature of Chinese hardware, I predict we're going to shortly see an "oh wait, they were lying, it's 200 teraflops of American hardware" come down the pipe.

    I wouldn't mind being wrong, though.

  13. Fastest?! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oak Ridge (Jaguar):
    Cores Rmax(GFlops) Rpeak(GFlops) Nmax Nhalf
    224162 1759000 2331000 5474272 0

    Seems faster by a good margin.

    1. Re:Fastest?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must agree. Jag is 2.33Petaflops. What am I missing.

    2. Re:Fastest?! by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Chinese computer has the fastest theoretical "peak" performance, but how well that translates to actual operational efficiency really depends on how well they are actually able to utilize the GPUs. This computer makes massive use of the GPUs which sort of gives it an architecture similar to the earth simulator, ie a massive # of vector processors supplemented by some scalar cpus. GPUs have a lot more memory bandwidth restrictions when compared to the general purpose vector CPUs used in the earth simulator but are drastically less expensive(so it's possible to use a lot more of them)
      Jaguar by comparison doesn't really use a lot of GPGPU computing for better or for worse.

    3. Re:Fastest?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. Numbers Correction by airwick · · Score: 4, Informative

    The slashdot summary has the wrong numbers. The actual article which slashdot quotes is contradictory. Its starts by saying:
    "Tianhe-1A has set a new performance record of 2.507 petaflops, as measured by the Linpack benchmark, making it the fastest system in China and in the world today."
    and then one paragraph later it gives the same numbers as the slashdot summary.

    Other articles (from other sites) are claiming theoretical peak performance of 4 Petaflops (from an Nvidia source) and sustained petaflops of 2.5.

    1. Re:Numbers Correction by trooperer · · Score: 1

      I noticed the same thing. Looking at the previous top 10 list I noticed that the old Tianhe-I has the exact same performance as new 1A one

    2. Re:Numbers Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at the news article on nudt.edu.cn (the site hosting the machine) it seems the peak is 1.2 PF and linpack 560 TF. Also from that page, GPUs are ATI, not Nvidia.

      The article mentions plans to upgrade which would yield ~800 TF linpack.

      What to believe...

    3. Re:Numbers Correction by fahlesr1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blue Waters is supposed to have a theorectical peak performance of 10 petaflops and sustained performance of 1. Personally I doubt that Tianhe-1A can sustain 2.5, I think the half petaflop number is probably more accurate.

      Its easy to throw lots of CPUs together, its much harder to keep them all busy.

    4. Re:Numbers Correction by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      So the author of the original article did about as much due diligence as the editor on /. did in publishing this article here?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  15. Newegg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So apparently all it takes to make a "supercomputer" now is lots and lots of money. Just go to Newegg and order that dual socket xeon dream machine you have in your cart. Then order 14,000 more of them.

    1. Re:Newegg by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Don't forget the dam to power that baby up and its cooling equipment, the cabling and the housing.

  16. How fast ? by Saint+Gerbil · · Score: 1

    From TFA:
    "... Tianhe-1A has set a new performance record of 2.507 pataflops, as mesured by the Linpack benchmark ... Tianhe-1A is theorectically able to do more than 1 quadrillion calculations per second(one petaflop) at peak speed. Tianhe-1A's peak performance reaches 1.206 petaflops...

    So does it do 1, 1.206 or 2.507 petaflops ?

    1. Re:How fast ? by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Depends on which currency you use? :p

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  17. China lies. by rafter109 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is absolutely no consistency in numbers in this story. Some measurements show this computer to be about 45% slower than the Cray XT5 and some show it to be faster. Given China's history of arbitrarily throwing out numbers to try to prop themselves up in the international community I cannot accept this as fact without some sort of independent verification. If China has in fact created the worlds fastest supercomputer, I congratulate them on a job well done. But I am still skeptical about this story. Sounds like my government (US) is just looking for an excuse to spend billions more on a new supercomputer.

    1. Re:China lies. by HisMother · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's my reaction too. China can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true.

      --
      Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
    2. Re:China lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like, "Tibet is actually just a province of China, not an independent country as everyone else believes. It's always been this way. Tibet has always paid taxes in return for protection. When the Tibetan leaders became corrupt, started keeping slaves [?], hoarding money, not paying taxes, the Chinese government had to step in to protect their citizens." Nice story. Good fuzzy feelings. Stop those naughty monks. Yeah, right. I work with a bunch of Chinese, and it's amazing the stuff they hold to be self evident.

    3. Re:China lies. by allanmackenzie · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    4. Re:China lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how the americans are immediately hostile to the possibility that China is eclipsing them? It's almost a reflex, ingrained from birth. The hollow mantra of "America the brave", the biggest lie of all.

    5. Re:China lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you right up until that last head-scratching bit of irrationality there, sport.

  18. Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tianhe-1A is theoretically able to do more than 1 quadrillion calculations per second (one petaflop) at peak speed. Tianhe-1A 's peak performance reaches 1.206 petaflops, and it runs at 563.1 teraflops (1,000 teraflops is equal to one petaflop) on the Linpack benchmark.

    That's almost enough to run Vista!

  19. Fastest supercomputer for how long? by LogarithmicSpiral · · Score: 1

    Is this faster than Blue Waters at NCSA is going to be in 2011?

    1. Re:Fastest supercomputer for how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have annoyed Steve Jobs so he will go with the G5 processor to get the crown back!

    2. Re:Fastest supercomputer for how long? by gauauu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is this faster than Blue Waters at NCSA is going to be in 2011?

      Nope, Blue Waters is supposed to be significantly faster. According to NCSA's page about Blue Waters, Blue Waters is supposed to have peak performance of 10 petaflops, and sustained performance at 1 petaflop. Tianhe-1A, according to the summary, peaks at about 1.2 petaflops.

  20. Fire this reporter by Orgasmatron · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article starts by claiming 2.507 petaflops, but gives no mention if that is Rmax or Rpeak. We have to assume that it is Rmax, since 2.5 petaflops is no big deal in terms of Rpeak.

    Unfortunately, then the article lists both Rpeak and Rmax. But the numbers quoted seem to be for Tianhe-I (#7 on the top 500 list), not Tianhe-IA (not currently listed). Wikipedia table of the top 10

    Oh, and it gets better. The article claims that Tianhe-IA has 7,168 GPUs and 14,336 CPUs. Very strange, since the Tianhe-I has 71,680 CPU/GPU pairs.

    My guess is that China doubled up their Tianhe-I computer and swapped out for newer GPUs, then named the new thing Tianhe-IA (this is pretty normal when competing for top500 spots). I'm going to go with 143,360 Xeon/M2050 pairs. Either that, or the Chinese found a way to overclock 10% of their chips into the 20+ GHz range and threw out the rest.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Fire this reporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Official announcement here: http://www.samss.org.cn/sites/shuxue/pcC.jsp?contentId=2574650376854

      Translate for you:

      Researcher: University of National Defense Science and Technology
      Model: Tainhe 1A/7168x2 Intel Hexa Core Xeon X5670 2.93GHz + 7168 Nvidia Tesla M2050@1.15GHz+2048 Hex Core FT-1000@1GHz/Private High Speed Network 80Gbps
      Installation location: Tianjin Branch of the National Supercomputer Center
      Installation year: 2010
      Application area: Scientific computing/Industry
      # of CPU: 202752
      Linpack Value(Gflops): 2507000.00
      Linpack source: Q
      Peak (Gflops): 4701000.00
      Efficiency: 0.533

      They used 2048 China made CPU. It's also reported that due to the lagging of the application software development they didn't swap out all the Intel CPUs but it would be possible given the time.

    2. Re:Fire this reporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is an easier explanation. The nVidia PR department convinced them them that instead of doubling their CPU/GPU pairs, they could just use ONE TENTH of their new super duper Fermi stuff and get that kind of performance ;)

    3. Re:Fire this reporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Tianhe-1 did NOT have 71,680 CPU/GPU pairs. Official config here: http://www.samss.org.cn/sites/shuxue/pcC.jsp?contentId=2502334815421

      It had 3072x2 Intel Quad Core Xeon E5540 2.53GHz/E5450 3.0GHz+ 2560 ATI Radeon 4870X2@575MHz

  21. Supercomputing is passe by sarkeizen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Supercomputing is largely a solved problem...do a regression analysis on the variables on the Top 500 sometime. Primarily it's a function of the number of cores. I've told people in my own workplace - you want a machine on the Top 500 then write me a cheque - making a supercomputer isn't the feat of skill or engineering that it was in the days of Cray. This doesn't even touch on what the hell you use these things for the problem space for parallel processing is clearly smaller than that of serial processing. Add to that the assertion that the number of useful applications drops off steeply as you add more cores (at some point you are left with only the "embarrassingly parallel" ones) and creating the largest supercomputer in the world is akin to saying you are creating the least useful computer in the world. Not to mention probably one of the least power efficient, highest maintenance costs, etc..

    1. Re:Supercomputing is passe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supercomputing is a solved problem?

      Tell that to the computer scientists trying to find ways to make more applications take advantage of massive parallelism.

    2. Re:Supercomputing is passe by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Building the computer and quoting high numbers on the Linpack benchmark is a solved problem, requiring only financial means.

      Actually writing efficient parallel code for many applications is definitely not a solved problem.

    3. Re:Supercomputing is passe by sarkeizen · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I did think the context was clear both from my writing and the fact that the article we are discussing is about building a machine. Anywho it's interesting that you emphasize efficiency in parallelism. I always find it curious that parallelism is assumed to always provide equal or improved performance even if the improvement is slight. However take something like estimating Pi. It can be reduced to an embarrassingly parallel algorithm however in doing so it is guaranteed slower than a serial algorithm (ceterus paribus). In other worlds any finite number of compute nodes are going to estimate digits more slowly than a single machine.

    4. Re:Supercomputing is passe by sarkeizen · · Score: 1

      Read more than six words. Moron. (Glad I got that in under six words)

    5. Re:Supercomputing is passe by JerkBoB · · Score: 1

      I love how using a few fancy words and writing assertively is the only thing necessary for getting a few "Insightful" mods.

      You don't know what the hell you're talking about. As someone who's been living and breathing HPC for years, I can say that supercomputing is most definitely NOT passe.

      It's true that supercomputers are only needed for a relatively small subset of computing problems, but that subset is pretty damned important to science. There are some problems which are just too huge to be handled with anything smaller. Large-scale weather modeling. Tsunami danger predictions. Nuke-readiness testing. Fusion-ignition modeling. The list goes on.

      "Just use EC2" you say... Um, OK. Sure, we'll just ignore the pitifully slow interconnects between nodes (yes, I know about the Cluster Compute instance type, but you can only get 100 at a time). Call me back in a week when you've finished loading that 400TB dataset into S3. And after you've taken an eon to crunch it all, you'll need another week to dump the results back out. Etc. etc.

      Supercomputing at the high end is not just stringing a bunch of boxes together. There's a lot of specialized design which goes into the high-speed interconnects (e.g. Cray's SeaStar or Gemini), the high-speed storage (Lustre, GPFS), the custom system boards for fast memory and I/O, and the custom cases needed to keep it all cool without requiring as much energy to cool it as an off-the shelf solution would.

      Saying that supercomputing is largely a solved problem is like saying that space flight is largely a solved problem. Sure, you can just brute-force it, but there is plenty of room for innovation in efficiency, safety, and performance.

      It's OK to be ignorant about something outside of your field. We all are. Just don't pretend to know something you don't.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    6. Re:Supercomputing is passe by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      Primarily it's a function of the number of cores. I've told people in my own workplace - you want a machine on the Top 500 then write me a cheque - making a supercomputer isn't the feat of skill or engineering that it was in the days of Cray.

      Really. Just stop. You're looking foolish. Supercomputing is nowhere near a solved problem. The industry changes so quickly that solutions arrived at for one generation often don't apply to the next. You're under the false impression that supercomputing is about flops. It's not. It's about bandwidth and software.

      --

    7. Re:Supercomputing is passe by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Call me back in a week when you've finished loading that 400TB dataset into S3. And after you've taken an eon to crunch it all, you'll need another week to dump the results back out.

      To be fair, if you're going to (have had to) wait for an eon for the processing, a week to (un-)load the data doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

      --
      That is all.
    8. Re:Supercomputing is passe by sarkeizen · · Score: 1

      Weird. The article was about building supercomputers - so was my comment. And the EC2 thing - man where did that come from? I'm one of the biggest critics of that technology. It is definitely NOT a replacement for large cluster environments even small highly parallel tasks the MD5 cracking - It's like 3x slower and 2x as expensive than using a high-end GPU.

      "It's OK to be ignorant about something outside of your field."

      How about being ignorant about a post you allegedly read?

    9. Re:Supercomputing is passe by sarkeizen · · Score: 1

      Well first I'm not sure why you're highlighting that quote. The position in the Top500 does correlate more strongly with cores than any other factor - including bandwidth. However this isn't surprising considering as it's just a measure of how well they run linpack. So the statement I made is correct - I don't need to know that IB's RDMA provides better latency than substituting that with 10Ge to get on the Top500.

      I have no problem with the idea that there are applications where the interconnect speed is significant (there are definitely cases where it is not and in those cases where it is my gut reaction would be that the performance increase is likely to be less than two-fold) and that drives the number and degree that you can utilize cores. However it seems reasonable to be that these cases pair down the problem space yet again. The problem is that, unless you're misreading me it's not clear that we are still talking about the general case.

      This is the inherent risk in generalizing just about anything. If I say "X" strongly correlates with "Y" then I'll have somebody invoke case "Z" and now we have to discuss how much "Z" contributes to the general case...and I start thinking about a parable involving blind men and an elephant. For example I've talked to HPC people who, from our conversation I would assume would counter you with "You think it's about bandwidth, It's not. It's about latency"...and so on.

  22. Metric? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    What metric should one use to compare supercomputers? Using the amount of floating point operations performed per second (FLOPS) comes across as a little silly, because if you just pile together a sufficient amount of standard PC's, you should be able to top it (maybe Folding@home could be considered a bigger supercomputer). Therefore, I assume that the interconnectivity (and the speed related to it) of the CPU's should have something to do with it...

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Metric? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain Linpack (the standard metric) requires decent connectivity if it is to scale.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  23. Meh by csoto · · Score: 4, Funny

    The only reason it's so fast is because a half hour after you feed it data, it's hungry again...

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  24. LHC by fantomas · · Score: 1

    - what "nationalist chest thumping" went on to make the Large Hadron Collider happen?

      just curious to see how this fits into your theory. I've no idea, maybe you have the answer. But the LHC seems to have got built, and not as a war time artefact (in my ignorant opinion). Seems more like a collaboration between nations.

    Education on this point welcomed.....

    1. Re:LHC by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      all of european advancement over the last 10 centuries can be traced to tribal and then nationalist competition

      french spanish and british frigates would not have been sailing around india, china and the south pacific, making military inroads, if french spanish and british galleons were not first doing their best to better shoot holes into one another

      in fact, you can say china and india stagnated behind european scientific advancement precisely because there was no fever pitch nationalist rivalries in those areas

      european history is exhibit number one of scientific advancement propelled forward by nationalist rivalry, hardly an example of a contrast to what i am saying

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:LHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will answer this for you. I'm posting as AC because I don't even have a Slashdot account.

      The answer is: EUROPEAN nationalist chest thumping. The younger generation (of which I am part) has embraced the ideal of the European Union to an extent that the older generation cannot begin to understand. The 20-somethings that are actually RUNNING the LHC (as opposed to the 40-somethings like most staff and the Director General himself) consider themselves much more Europeans than citizens of their home countries. It is so large a mindset change that it was enough to make the LHC happen. It couldn't have happened in a non-EU setting.

      Of course, there is also the fact that the SSC was cancelled. The influx of American money to the LHC was a blessing in itself.

    3. Re:LHC by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Exactly, nationalist chest thumping can only help if a country wants to do something on its own. What's necessary is having abundant resources to spend on something that isn't profitable - and if many nations with these abundant resources collaborate, they can do really amazing things with their collective resources like the LHC.

      America gave their abundant resources to the corporate elite and blew it on unnecessary wars and bailing out their broken financial system (Am I being redundant?).

      Far from their past ability to single-handedly do things like the moon landing, they don't even have any resources to contribute to a collective effort.

      Motivation doesn't matter anymore, because the spare economic capability is gone. The US has still done smaller-scale things like Hubble, parts of the ISS, etc, but they've lost the capability to do anything big like a moon landing or LHC. If there isn't a near-guarantee of profit (or at least military usefulness) there's no way in hell they can do it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:LHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all of european advancement over the last 10 centuries can be traced to tribal and then nationalist competition

      french spanish and british frigates would not have been sailing around india, china and the south pacific, making military inroads, if french spanish and british galleons were not first doing their best to better shoot holes into one another

      So you are saying that the British would not have tried to find India and open up a huge market for their goods to get all of the economic benefits if the French weren't also trying? Sure they might not have taken as many guns with them, but it seems crazy to suggest that people don't do things for the benefit of themselves, but only to get one up on their rivals.

      in fact, you can say china and india stagnated behind european scientific advancement precisely because there was no fever pitch nationalist rivalries in those areas

      So you are telling me that India - a country that was formed from the English combining several independent states on the Indian subcontinent - didn't have wars, empires and all the nationalist sentiment that comes along with that?

      I am not saying that rivalries can't be a motivator for massive investment in science, but to try and claim that its the only one is a bit of a stretch

    5. Re:LHC by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the British would not have tried to find India and open up a huge market for their goods to get all of the economic benefits if the French weren't also trying?

      yes, that is exactly what i am saying

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_India

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_India

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_enclaves_in_China

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

      etc

      you just don't know your history very well

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:LHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in most of the cases, colonisation was about money (grab the most resources, gold, spices, slaves, etc.). Nationalism is what the people in power use to motivate the poor people to do their bidding.

    7. Re:LHC by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      colonialism was nationalist rivalry

      if there was no competition to spur them on, the european powers would not have gobbled so greedily

      look at any historical tract from any time period in any area of the world, it's always the british worrying about the french getting ahead or the spanish worrying about the portuguese fort or the dutch worrying about the belgians or the germans or the danish worrying about falling behind, etc., etc.

      not to mention the main point is that the technology that enabled the european powers to colonize in the first place was only possible because of nationalist rivalry back in europe

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. Hmmm El Taco might want to check... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

    his sources. As reported on CNN from Mashable:

    Unveiled Wednesday at the Annual Meeting of National High Performance Computing (HPC China 2010) in Beijing, Tianhe-1A is the world's fastest supercomputer with a performance record of 2.507 petaflops, as measured by the LINPACK benchmark.

    Tianhe-1A was designed by the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) in China, and it is already fully operational.

    To achieve the new performance record, Tianhe-1A uses 7,168 Nvidia Tesla M2050 GPUs and 14,336 Intel Xeon CPUs.

    It cost $88 million; its 103 cabinets weigh 155 tons, and the entire system consumes 4.04 megawatts of electricity.

    Tianhe-1A ousted the previous record holder, Cray XT5 Jaguar, which is used by the U.S. National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

    It is powered by 224,162 Opteron CPUs and achieves a performance record of 1.75 petaflops.

    According to Nvidia, Tianhe-1A will be operated as an open access system to use for large scale scientific computations.

    Just sayin...

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  26. Uh - China didn't "make" it, they "assembled" it by Emperor+Shaddam+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China: "We made the fastest super-computer!!!"

    Intel and NVidia: "Uh - no you didn't, We are own all your processors!!!"

  27. blue waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    IBM and the NSF are already building a supercomputer which will have an eventual supposed peak performance of 10 petaflops: Blue Waters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Waters At the university of Illinois. I actually work at the university and have been by the building (it is complete), though we don't have the hardware yet from IBM. It is all starting to go in, though, and is supposed to be working before October of next year. So don't worry, it's not like the US is getting stomped in computing power.

    Also, to those posters questioning the need for supercomputers......as someone who works on HPC code and applications, I cannot disagree with you more. We already have simulations that are not practical to run on modern supercomputers. In the grand scheme of things, these are not even terribly "complex" issues when compared to, say, modeling an entire human organ or even body. Imagine what we could do with something like that....you could test new "drugs" in a simulated environment and get a good idea of the effects (this is all just one idea that comes to mind)...

  28. I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Purported accomplishments made by men needs to be divided by 3 to give the real picture (IE: I've slept with 12 different women throughout my life)

    Purported accomplishments made by China needs to be divided by 100 to give the real picture (IE: We consider thousands of public petitions regarding corruption every year. We've just constructed the fastest train in the world etc.)

    Purported accomplishments made by North Korea needs to be divided by infinity to give the real picture (IE: We've discovered the cure for cancer. We have a succesfull space-program. We are happy).

  29. They'll just find out..... by paranoid123 · · Score: 1

    in about a year that it's full of lead, heavy metals, and other chemicals that are bad for babies and pregnant mothers.

  30. Faster hardware than this is possible by ka9dgx · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Long ago I mis-understood what a "bit slice" processor really was... and the bit grid was born. If I'm right it's possible to build something to kick the current technology to the curb, running in a single rack.

    Due to the Von Neuman bottleneck, most of the transistors in a computer are in the RAM, which is idle except for the row/column being accessed at a given time. The bitgrid gets around this by building a grid of look up tables which operate on 4 bits in and 4 bits. It should be quite easy to build a chip which has a million of these tables in a 1000x1000 grid. This would allow data to flow off the edges at a result per clock cycle.... which in modern CMOS is at least 1 Ghz.

    Finding applications to run on a theoretical chip isn't easy... but synthetic focus imagery comes to mind. Imagine a survey plane with an array of cameras, generating 3d imagery with a resolution of 1 centimeter in all 3 dimensions, at a speed of 1000 kph at a height of 15,000 meters, giving a swath 5 km wide.... that's 14 Gigapixels/second of final product. I believe it's feasible to do this with the bit grid chip.

    Anyone want to sponsor the research? If not, I'll stick to my day job.

    1. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Look up "artificial retina", not the kind to restore vision to the blind, but the kind to perform computer vision tasks

      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F4%2F5792%2F00222178.pdf%3Farnumber%3D222178&authDecision=-203

      Very similar to what you are suggesting.

    2. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Systolic array?

      Processor-In-Memory?

    3. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Congratulations, you've re-invented the FPGA and the systolic array.

    4. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by ka9dgx · · Score: 1
      The FPGA is a course grained device, which is generally heterogeneous. A lot of effort in the actual designs that use an FPGA centers around getting a design which meets timing requirements and routability.

      The simplicity, uniformity, and symmetry of a bitgrid design allows for almost trivial movement of portions of a computation, which also allows it to route around hardware failure.

      The systolic array is any array of computational elements each of which runs its own program.... almost any supercomputer is a systolic array.

      I've not really invented anything... but I have re-imagined what FPGAs could be, if someone were to toss out routing and go as fine grained as feasible.

      There are definitive differences between the FPGA and the Bit Grid... and I hope this reply points them out sufficiently to merit further attention.

    5. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunate that the article is behind a payway, as it does look quite interesting.

    6. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due to the Von Neuman bottleneck, most of the transistors in a computer are in the RAM, which is idle except for the row/column being accessed at a given time. The bitgrid gets around this by building a grid of look up tables which operate on 4 bits in and 4 bits. It should be quite easy to build a chip which has a million of these tables in a 1000x1000 grid. This would allow data to flow off the edges at a result per clock cycle.... which in modern CMOS is at least 1 Ghz.

      Congratulations... you have just re-invented the 4-input LUT FPGA that's been a mainstay of application-specific design for the last decade.

      (Only they work better with dedicated multipliers and block rams to augment the LUT fabric)

    7. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've not really invented anything... but I have re-imagined what FPGAs could be, if someone were to toss out routing and go as fine grained as feasible.

      Been done too. One of the commercial FPGA architectures (the name escapes me at the moment) in the early '90s was essentially what you describe. It didn't prove to be particularly effective or useful and the company went out of business.

      I'll have to dig around and see what the name was.

    8. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Due to the Von Neuman bottleneck, most of the transistors in a computer are in the RAM, which is idle except for the row/column being accessed at a given time. The bitgrid gets around this by building a grid of look up tables which operate on 4 bits in and 4 bits. It should be quite easy to build a chip which has a million of these tables in a 1000x1000 grid. This would allow data to flow off the edges at a result per clock cycle.... which in modern CMOS is at least 1 Ghz.

      No offense, but poster is an idiot - what he is describing is called a FPGA, readily available, and image processing (for scientific, industrial purposes etc) is one of its many applications. A few hundred $$ will buy you a board with FPGA on it that has hundreds of thousands, or even millions "look up tables which operate on 4 bits in and 4 bits" (look up table = LUT, which effectively translates into a simple logic gate of your choice).

      No, creating 1000x1000 grids of those isn't easy, but Xilinx, Altera etc. have been doing it for a while now. And building a FPGA isn't the hard part anymore - understanding the architecture, thinking up effective ways to use them, and programming them, is.

    9. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

      Well, I may an idiot, but I think you've jumped to that conclusion prematurely. I have done quite a bit of research in this area trying to find some prior art, things got close a few times, but no cigar.

      As to your claim that it's possible to do this with an existing FPGA, According to Digikey, their "biggest" Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA, which prices out at about $150 is capable of providing 5831 CLBs... which is less than 1% of the capability of the bitgrid chip I proposed above.

      A chip devoid of specialized routing hardware and all the complexity that entails, will be far cheaper to design, test, and ship out the door. I estimate, base on NO actual experience, just a gut hunch... that $10.00 for the final device would give a very nice profit margin to the manufacturer. I would imagine that a second generation device would include far more cells, and perhaps some specialized I/O.

      The FPGA industry optimized on complexity, and trying to get the maximum performance out of a piece of silicon. It's my thesis that they prematurely optimized, and a much simpler architecture could provide a new class of solutions which may be far more efficient for a number of applications

      As you said, building the FPGA isn't the hard part... actually understanding the architecture enough to maximize its use is. The BitGrid is dead simple, can process data in all 4 directions simultaneously, can route around defects, and can add/remove a bit of precision from a function with no major hassles. This is NOT the case with an FPGA design.

      The thing I really need to find out, is just how much power does a 4 input/ 4 output LUT actually consume. I haven't been able to find that type of information, as it's all behind paywalls.

      In any case, thanks for the time and attention and discussion.

    10. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ah, yes, here it is: the Algotronix CAL1024. My memory was fuzzy, Algotronix was purchased by Xilinx and their technology was used in the the Xilinx XC6200 and evolved no further than that. The founders later split off and created Quicksilver Technolog to refine the idea and that's the one that went bankrupt.

      As I said, the idea has been done and it never went anywhere.

    11. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

      It took some digging, but at the core of the CAL1024 is a very limited compute logic (2 input LUT) and lots of routing logic.

      The sole innovative feature of the bitgrid is its complete lack of routing logic. Any LUT can be doing a part of a computation, in fact you could have 4 different computations going on at the same time in a given cell, as a maximum.

    12. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, a fine grained FPGA with no long lines, got it. I'd suggest just implementing a simulator for such a system in software; the elements are simple enough and it would be amenable to parallelizing across multiple cores. Just assume a fixed delay for processing and for travel between cells; the actual mechanics of real silicon can wait. Researchers use software simulation all the time for hardware that doesn't yet exist. Then you should try implementing some simple structures in the simulator to see how it works, e.g. generating Hamming codes or a barrel shifter or the like.

      Neither the inclusion of long lines on the CAL1024 and the trend towards increasing long line routing resources in FPGAs of the era were without reason. You'll find that for most common operations, there are a number of signals that just have to travel a fair distance. In your simulation, I expect that you'll find that you wind up paying a number of cycles equal to the Manhattan distance from where that signal originated and where it's needed and waste cells to serve as a delay for signals that are waiting for the long signal to arrive. Both of these inefficiences will get out of control very quickly.

      You can, of course, simply say that designs that require long distance signals are excluded but then you are left with the intractable problem of demonstrating that there's anything useful it can do. That's pretty much a nonstarter.

    13. Re:Faster hardware than this is possible by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

      The use of a string of cells to handle long lines IS a ridiculous was of transistors, and a fairly large source of delay.. that's for sure. The ability to use the cell in the other 3 directions while passing a signal kinda makes up for it.

      The big bet with the bitgrid is that the flexibility in routing makes it possible to optimized designs in ways impractical with FPGAs. The ability to flip or rotate a given virtual hardware object is something that doesn't happen easily with FPGAs, as far as I know.

      I have done a simulator, even going so far as to guess what the energy to flip a bit is... it would be very useful to have a realistic estimate, so I can tell just how much energy is required to do an FFT, or whatever.

      I know long lines are very useful when you're squeezing the last bit of functionality out of an FPGA, my hope is to let the compiler do that by moving the pieces around and try several optimizations.

      Thanks for sticking with the thread... you've given me some good things to think about

  31. Yawn... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    Call me when China invents something like Tang.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:Yawn... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      No one has yet mentioned the Tang Dynasty?

  32. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually that whole "borrow money" stuff is bullshit, because we use a central bank with fiat currency creating systems, tha trickles down to local private banks and fractional reserve lending.

        Those fed papers of various kinds the chinese buy are just crap "backed" by...the US printing press. And that's it. They are *stuck* with them, not blessed with them. There's a big difference. The Fed itself buys a lot of them back, where they can just be poofed away.

    It's an elaborate grifter's congame, but not that hard to grok when you start with the understanding that they are created and "loaned" into existence. Then, no matter what they are called, T bills whatever, it's all variations on that same poof created into existence. It's a joke. Basically, we get boatloads of free stuff from china daily. They ain't gonna do this forever you know..they aren't that stupid.

    Now, they HAD to do this while they were building up their manufacturing might over the past three decades, china I mean, because they turned around and bought machine tools, factories etc that they didn't have and needed FRNs for. Now..past tense. That was then, this is now. No longer expressly needed for most things, china has enough manufacturing know how to build most anything, with only a few highly specialized things left to conquer.

    It has been an amazing wealth transference to the US based on cheap chinese labor, but like all grifter's scams it will end soon and the prices for imported goods will skyrocket, now that china is shifting their export focus to those nations with available raw materials to exploit, and also into arable land for growing more food. (Africa etc..they are buying it up daily). Their other huge market now is INTERNAL to themselves, they are switching from mass poverty and everyone having some sort of job, no matter how low paid, to now building their middle class.

    They no longer need US IOU debt notes in other words. The change will be gradual, but that is 100% the trend and reality now. We hit the tip over point with those wall street thieves derivatives bomb that exploded.

    US alleged debt, now measured in the tens of trillions, can only be met through hyper inflation or default, there is no non-awkward way for it to be paid off, taxes sure ain't gonna do it, that's a big fat joke, as is squabbling over minute changes to tax rates.

    1. Re:Actually by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Hyperinflation sure sounds nice to most people who have large student loans.

  33. but can it surf "free Tibet?" by swschrad · · Score: 1

    I'll bet it can't!

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  34. Re:Uh - China didn't "make" it, they "assembled" i by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    China: "We made the fastest super-computer!!!"

    Intel and NVidia: "Uh - no you didn't, We are own all your processors!!!"

    The magic behind supercomputing isn't CPUs.
    The real trick has always been the interconnects & the software that gets those thousands of C/GPUs talking to each other.

    And don't ever forget that China is developing its own CPU.
    It still sucks right now, but like with rare earth minerals, China is in this for the long haul.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  35. Creative Workforce by morristhewise · · Score: 1

    With the creation of the worlds fastest computer China no longer will be thought of as the land of cheap labor, but also as a land inhabited by the worlds fastest thinkers. Research and development was once monopolized by the US and it was the leader in the race for new products, but a yellow horse has now taken the lead. Unless the US regains its once creative workforce, it will finish out of the money.

    1. Re:Creative Workforce by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you do marketing for a living? sure, they have scientists and engineers over there, but the majority of workforce is doing cheap menial labor, not a "creative workforce" at all

      half the work force, 300 million, are farmers. creativity in planting rice paddies....

  36. US Black project alien technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US black projects have computing powers humanity can only dream about..

    Area 51 is not called dreamland for nothing.

    I love laughing at irrelevant pissing contests.

  37. Re:Uh - China didn't "make" it, they "assembled" i by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Informative

    The real trick has always been the interconnects & the software that gets those thousands of C/GPUs talking to each other.

    Yes, this is spot on for massively parallel systems. The interesting thing is that China does actually make their own interconnects, but they aren't so great. The Tianhe-1 actually runs at 47% of the theoretical capacity. In contrast, the previous number 1 (Jaguar) runs at about 76%. In fact, China's previous big HPC was Nebulae, which had a higher theoretical peak than Jaguar, but didn't actually perform faster because of interconnects problem.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  38. Petaflop == Lead Poisoning by ojak · · Score: 1

    After an hour of processing I contracted lead poisoning and was inexplicably hungry...

  39. Actually by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Tianhe-1A is theoretically able to do more than 1 quadrillion calculations per second (one petaflop) at peak speed. Tianhe-1A 's peak performance reaches 1.206 petaflops,

    But according to the news Jaguar is able to mosey along at 1.75 petaflops, and Tianhe is rolling along at 2.5. The petaflops barrier was broken a few years ago, so Tianhe is basically a product of Moore's law.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  40. Yeah, maybe we can flood the Grand Canyon too by istartedi · · Score: 1

    The 3 gorges will have nothing on us. That'll show 'em!

    And if destroying the natural beauty isn't enough, I'm sure we can find some priceless pueblo or ancient burial mound, and turn it into a cooling pond for a giant nuclear plant. Take that, China!

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  41. Might come true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it will be a combo of both default and hyper inflation (so your nasty student loan might go away eventually), followed by a brief and nasty civil war in the US, with overlapping players (but it will start with some states just saying FU to the feds... but then it will get more complex) then a break up, like the USSR went through, except I am afraid the violence will be more intense and long lasting..way too many entrenched government fatcats and big bankers don't want to lose their exalted positions and power and money they get now. So, they will do what despots always do "crack down" and make an attempt to ripoff and enslave the people more..but they will fail in the end of course.

      Inevitable and it has to happen at this point. There is absolutely no, zero, nada way for the federal government (and the bulk of the states) to meet all these obligations it has promised to people, from social security to medical care to government worker pensions, on top of this alleged debt servicing and meeting the payroll they have now. Can't be done. Completely impossible.

        It gets down to basic math, has nothing to do with right or left wing or this party in charge or that party, just the math says "impossible" so that means "collapsed empire". It isn't going to matter who people vote for, and all that petty nonsense that goes on with one set of victims blaming the other set, and both sets looking to millionaire party "leaders" to save them..I mean..believing in that stuff is like believing in the tooth fairy now. I think you really have to be hopelessly naive to have any faith in the current political structure being anything but a duopololistic kleptocracy.

    1. Re:Might come true by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      here is absolutely no, zero, nada way for the federal government (and the bulk of the states) to meet all these obligations it has promised to people

      Citation please. The only reason we can't meet these obligations right now is that the Republicans and their rich cronies don't want to pay their fair share into the system.

      --

  42. Re:Uh - China didn't "make" it, they "assembled" i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aren't those chips actually made in china?

  43. Get stuffed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry old timer, but you are a fucking idiot. Citation? Just go google it up yourself. I study economics and geopolitics daily, beyond the headlines. Your phony left/right republican versus democrat shit is last century. Anyone who still believes that shit is a fucking gibbering short bus drool. It's the same fatcat establishment, using the "divide and conquer" routine to keep their useful idiot political activists..activated.

    It's POLITICAL THEATER. Follow the money and power upstream PAST those idiot TV spokespeople that get elected to see what is really going on. Shit fire and piss napalm, you failed to notice BOTH parties continued to payoff those wall street crooks when they couldn't cover all their insane derivative bets?? Fucking A... We had over one THOUSAND criminal convictions after the savings and loan scandal..how many convictions from the latest wall street ripoff, under EITHER the Rs or Ds? That's right... ZERO. Not a fucking one. Because your glorious Ds are JUST AS CORRUPT AND BOUGHT OFF.

    This is sub junior high level...if you can't understand it, go do your own research.

    They sold the economy out for short term profits, get it? Like corporate raiding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_raid, just on a hugemongous scale. Sell off the good stuff, show "huge profits" for a few quarters, then the assholes who have run the company down into bankruptcy bailout with golden parachutes. In this case though, it took a few decades, but it is THE SAME THING.

    Oh, and to emphasize, fuck you and anyone else with your lame and retarded "big political differences" between the two 100% completely corrupt kleptocrat wings of the SAME PARTY.

    Retarded morons keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.. oh, more taxes will work...you idiot, they shoved off twenty million and counting WEALTH PRODUCING jobs, the BACKBONE of the US economy, and THOSE JOBS AREN'T COMING BACK. Ever hear of the "99ers"? Those are the people who have already gone through the often extended unemployment check payout period, now millions of them are facing either get even more extensions (more debt), or out on the street..because THE JOBS AIN'T COMING BACK. No jobs, no taxes, get it yet? Record numbers of people on food stamps? They have to cook the books on unemployment figures? They strip food and energy costs from the cost of living index to keep it low, so they don't have to bump up COLA adjustment payments? Any of this cross your inbox lately?

    Jeebus people like you are annoying. But you just go right ahead and yank that old Big D for dementia lever, as opposed to the big R for retarded lever...people like you are the major problem. You just *insist* on staying faked out.

    NO I don't have "citations" from paying attention for the last half a century to this, there isn't any one or two links to show you...man..

    Well, here is ONE citation to get you started.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

    You suffer from it. Get that licked, the other stuff will fall into place. /lecture

    1. Re:Get stuffed by David+Greene · · Score: 1

      Replying to a massive troll, but what the heck.

      Nowhere did I say raising taxes was the sole solution. We do need to raise revenue and we need to raise it from those who've been living off the hard work of the poor and (rapidly shrinking) middle class. We also need to rip apart a lot of existing systems and rebuild them from the ground up. Not necessarily because they're inefficient but because they're aimed at the wrong goals. Pumping money into a system that's oriented the wrong way isn't going to help anything.

      This is not a Democratic or Republican thing. It's common sense. I don't share your cynicism about the supposed lack of intelligence of the electorate. It's simply not very easy to know about the political intricacies when you're working three jobs and have a family to take care of.

      That said, it is absolutely false that both parties are equally to blame. The Republicans are much more in bed with big business and generally advocate policies that humanize corporations (see Citizens United) and dehumanize human beings (see opposition to health care access). There are bad players on both sides but one side has many more than the other and the official planks of one side actively encourage that behavior.

      Social Security would be solvent if we raised the limit on taxable income. Why is there even a limit?

      Our whole health care system would work much better if we went to a single-payer system or to any of the other systems where health is treated as a public good. This has been demonstrated across the world. Simply look at the health outcome numbers and the funding input numbers.

      It's really, really not rocket science to fix most of our major problems. The problem, as always, is political will.

      --

    2. Re:Get stuffed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, you cant have an open and honest monetary system becouse Rothschild's private Federal Reserve system is on the way.
      Kill the bank! and give money creation right back to congress!

  44. Re:Uh - China didn't "make" it, they "assembled" i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China: "Your property is only imaginary! We are own all your fab lines!!"

  45. pattern starting to emerge: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biggest Olympics.
    Fastest train.
    Fastest computer.
    And doing it all without spending more than they earn (I'm not sure why Americans want a stronger Yuan. Doesn't it just means whatever they have is worth a lot more?).

    We need to trample on human rights a bit more. Hasn't seem to hurt China's progress too much.

  46. Original post has wrong info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check facts please.

    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/10/china-supercomputer/

  47. Too late now, but whatever by aliquis · · Score: 1

    To put it in perspective:

    Chinas new super computer:
    $ 88,000,000

    US defense budget 2009:
    $ 515,400,000,000

    Yeah, I can't see how you could possible be able to afford anything like this!

    (And who knows, eventually your military already has it, or much better gear, just not bragging about it in the open.)

    1. Re:Too late now, but whatever by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Throw in the old quantitative easing and the new QE2 if it happens and be sure that lots of those dollars will be spent in China (and borrowed from them?)

      Sure you can afford lots .. Obviously.

  48. Re:Uh - China didn't "make" it, they "assembled" i by Roman+Mamedov · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this supercomputer is totally 'meh', at reading the title I was hoping they used https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Loongson#Loongson_3 not nvidious crap.

  49. Wars, i.e. effects of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except those pesky wars. Weapons that are built often end up getting USED.. you know..

    With the weapons we have now, if that next war comes there won't be a world after it, or if there is, it will be so horrible that life won't be worth living.. (total destruction of literacy, global destruction of habitat/species, starvation, endemic cannibalism)

    Would you want to live in a freezing, toxic, moldy world where all the plants and animals, and almost all the other people were dead, and those who weren't, only wanted to EAT you?

    That's what happens. Look at the fossil record.

  50. We went to the moon with computers that were less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    powerful, FAR less powerful, than all but the VERY cheapest embedded microprocessors that are sold today.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

    The best computers that they had during the Apollo years were less powerful than the most basic embedded microprocessors that power household appliances.

    That's food for thought.