Slashdot Mirror
World's Most Powerful x86 Supercomputer Boots Up in Germany
Nerval's Lobster writes "Europe's most powerful supercomputer — and the fourth most powerful in the world — has been officially inaugurated. The SuperMUC, ranked fourth in the June TOP500 supercomputing listing, contains 147,456 cores using Intel Xeon 2.7-GHz, 8-core E5-2680 chips. IBM, which built the supercomputer, stated in a recent press release that the supercomputer actually includes more than 155,000 processor cores. It is located at the Leibniz-Rechenzentrum (Leibniz Supercomputing Centre) in Garching, Germany, near Munich. According to the TOP500 list, the SuperMUC is the world's most powerful X86-based supercomputer. The Department of Energy's 'Sequoia' supercomputer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., the world's [overall] most powerful, relies on 16-core, 1.6-GHz POWER BQC chips."
...so I can first post mote quickly!
Silence is a state of mime.
My fatass almost got excited for a second.. a supercomputer fueled by BBQ... :(
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
powerful and x86 are oxymorons. Try the i860 architecture now THAT's a processor, it's ancient I know.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
bis bald.
I need to find myself some of these Power BBQ Chips mentioned in the summary. Fast and tangy without the downside of Cheetoh fingers.
crysis won't run on highest settings. Sjeez.
But the real question is, can it run bitcoin mining software? See, you thought I was going to say Linux or Crysis, didn't you? lol.
;-)
P.S. most miners are run on Linux btw
If it was instead running Itanium (yes, I know that nobody uses Itanium any more) it would have been well suited to be called "Power BBQ" just by the heat output.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Windows 8 is a hog.
Its Europe's most powerful x64 supercomputer, not the world's.
Now if the Fed can just loan them our financial modeling software,
maybe we can save Spain.
On 2nd thought Goldman-Sachs might be a better place to shop for software.
I skimmed the article and couldn't find mention of what it's going to be calculating.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
2.7-GHz, 8-core E5-2680 chips
My computer is way faster than that!!!
and contains 155,000 processor cores
Oops, Never mind!
Can it play Crysis?
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
It's EUROPE's fastest supercomputer - but the topic title says "World." Last time I checked, Europe wasn't quite THAT big...
That's quite a heater! Mine only goes up to 1.5 kilowatts.
So is Xeon a faster CPU than the i7?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
... and in an instant, what was left of Germany's economy is vacuumed up by utility companies.
1) Does it run Linux?
2) I for one, would like to welcome our new register constrained overlord.
3) Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
4) In Soviet Russia supercomputer run YOU!
5) There is no God, I reject your fairytales.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
But they couldn't get the money out of Greese fast enough.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
$31.8 million in processors....if they bought them from newegg.
> actually includes more than 155,000 processor cores
Scientists and engineers toyed with putting Windows 8 on it, but Windows 8 with 150,000-200,000 core support was over $73 trillion.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Das Packard Bell -- ist nicht jus fur Walmart anymur
VA Must Disclose Documents to MK-ULTRA Victims
http://cryptogon.com/?p=30509
July 24th, 2012
Via: Courthouse News Service:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/23/48617.htm
"Veterans won another court order requiring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hand over more documents about its Cold War-era drug experiments on thousands of Vietnam veterans.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in Oakland, Calif., said the documents requested were âoesquarely relevantâ to the claim that the government failed to adequately notify veterans of the chemicals they were exposed to and what that exposure might do to their health.
The Army and the CIA, with the help of Nazi scientists, used at least 7,800 veterans as human guinea pigs for testing the effects of up to 400 types of drugs and chemicals, including mescaline, LSD, amphetamines, barbituates, mustard gas and nerve agents, the Vietnam Veterans of America and individual soldiers claim in a 2009 class action.
The government covered up the true nature of its experiments, which began in the 1950s under code names such as âoeBluebird,â âoeArtichokeâ and âoeMKUltra.â
In âoeProject Paperclip,â the Army and CIA allegedly recruited Nazi scientists to help test various psychochemicals and develop a new truth serum using its own veterans as test subjects.
âoeOver half of these Nazi recruits had been members of the SS or Nazi Party,â according to the class action. âoeThe âPaperclipâ(TM) name was chosen because so many of the employment applications were clipped to immigration papers.â
Veterans say the government was trying to develop and test substances that could trigger mind control, confusion, euphoria, altered personality, unconsciousness, physical paralysis, illogical thinking and mania, among other effects.
The experiments in Army compounds at Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick, Md., left many veterans with debilitating health problems for decades. Veterans say the government has since refused to provide proper medical care."
We're number four!!
We're number four!!
We're number four!!
This signature is false.
I think it's designed to run complex calculations on how the price of tea in china is related to everything.
play a game?
...and yet, only limited to four GB of RAM.
Damn the man ('s architecture) for holding us down.
Has anyone created a 'super computer' out of raspberry pi's yet?
Can you send a screencast?
At those settings, it must be better than real life.
for my 3d printer
Every year I keep reading that there are these new technologies that allow processors to go up to 128, 256, 512 and 1024bit computing (and beyond) or at least should be seen in the next year or two but that never happens. I've been hearing about this since the turn of the century. So could somebody be kind enough to explain this to me please and whether or not this has a use for anyone?
"...1.6-GHz POWER BBQ chips."
I really hate how the focus these days is on more cores, not faster cores.
Not every task is trivially parallelizable, and even with those that are, the speedup you get from running on N cores is always going to be less than Nx.
I'd be much more impressed by a supercomputer running, say, 1/4 as many 4.0 GHz+ processors.
Also: if what you're going for is massively parallelizable tasks, x86 is so last century--GPGPUs are where it's at.
with all those cpus. :)
Something that can boot Windows 8 in a reasonable amout of time...
Xeons are available in 8 and 10 core models (this computer uses the 8 core version) whereas i7s are only 4 and 6 core.
What are these machines being used for anyway? What have we achieved so far? How far has simulation of complex natural systems been helpful in understanding them? Can we make better predictions using faster computers or more refined algorithms? So far, computer simulations have not helped us understand or find dark matter- if something like that even exists. Our ability to predict the weather is still shit, and our climate models require “correction” factors to even approach observed values. Our ability to model protein folding and bio-molecular interactions is still pretty pathetic. This state of affairs has persisted in the face of colossal increases in available computational power. So what is going on? Why haven’t the computer gods delivered? Why would throwing more computational power at a problem solve it if previous attempts to do so have proved futile? http://dissention.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/the-super-computer-race-is-a-sad-scam/
... Can you play Doom on it?
The 16, 32, 64, 128-bit computing refers to the standard register size for integers and pointers in a processor. Specifically, a 32-bit computer can generally access 2^32 locations of memory, which is 4GB. A "true" 64-bit processor would be able to address 2^64 (18 quintrillian) bytes of memory. However, x86-64 only use 40 bytes for addressing, which will handle 1 TB of RAM. Additionally, doubling the data size makes every operation take significantly longer, so clock speeds have to suffer. Since very few applications actually need 64-bit or higher math functions, its more efficient to implement higher order stuff in software, and have a faster executing processor.
64 bits are enough to perform any kind of needed computation. More bits would imply larger instructions, larger memory pointers, less usable cache space; basically a waste.
Just think that now there's a proposal of switching many applications to use 32 bits pointers (on Linux) even if using 64 bits registers, so that more space is available for L1, L2 and L3 cache.
Hope this helps, cheers
Don't mix up addressing and computing.
The whole internet would fit in a 64 bit address space, there is really absolutely no need at all for more than 64 bit for addresses in CPUs, that's why x86_64 and other 64 bit archs are here to stay, and you'll probably never see "128 bit" processors at all.
On the other side, today's x86_64 CPUs are capable of 128 bit (SSE) and 256 bit (AVX) computing. The width of the compute units is also bound to increase for some time, with Intel already planning to go 1024 bit in the not-so-far future.
I want a to get a Super Mac.
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
Not always true. The 68000 has 8 x 32bit address and 8 x 32bit data registers, with a 24bit address bus. Nearly all operations can be performed as 32bit. Yet it's reguarded as a 16bit cpu.
What good is a 'Supercomputer' with only 4GB of address space?
will consume 50% of the CPU. If they run windows, 80% of the rest will be consumed by DPCs. That leaves 10% for the intended function.
World's Most Powerful x86 Supercomputer Boots Up in Germany
So, how fast does it boot?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Not always true. The 68000 has 8 x 32bit address and 8 x 32bit data registers, with a 24bit address bus. Nearly all operations can be performed as 32bit.
Yet it's reguarded as a 16bit cpu.
The 68000 had a 16-bit external bus and 32-bit internal architecture.
It was regarded as a 16/32-bit processor.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of SuperMUCs, or a cluster of clusters which would be semantically reduced to just 'cluster'....so just imagine a beowulf cluster.
But what sort of video card has it got?
I am anarch of all I survey.
Sure, it takes a while to manufacture the physical components, but they should have switched to a Flex configuration even midway in the installation process - would have saved money in the long run.
but then neither can any other system, since it requires windows and we all know that it sux badly.
When did "n bit processor" change its meaning from "n bit data" to "n bit address"?
The 8080 was an 8 bit processor, despite the fact that it had a 16 bit address bus (all addresses were given in 16 bits, unconditionally; you needed two registers to hold an address).
The 8086 was a 16 bit processor, despite the fact that its addresses were 20 bit (although they were split up into 16 bit chunks by segmentation, so a complete address needed a 16 bit segment and a 16 bit offset to be combined to a 20 bit address).
However, x86-64 only use 40 bytes for addressing, which will handle 1 TB of RAM.
40 *bytes* would be overkill and more than a TB, and 40 bits is outdated information:
"Current implementations of the AMD64 architecture (starting from AMD 10h microarchitecture) extend this to 48-bit physical addresses[9] and therefore can address up to 256 TB of RAM. The architecture permits extending this to 52 bits in the future"
So without a new architecture, can hit a petabyte of ram. There are systems with multiple terabytes of ram on a system already (see IBM x3850 x5 for example)
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
All comments analysed, you are all wrong.
SuperMUC
- this message took less than 1 yoctosecond -
My first reading of the article:
"1.6-GHz POWER BBQ chips."
Well, that is some fast barbecue.
What is the most powerful 1 processor machine?
There are problems that many processors can't handle as well as single processors, so I was wondering what is the KingKong of processors.
Some problems are inherently best handled by many processors (weather, seismic analysis, 3D processing, keeping websites up when having DOS attacks, come to mind) so the many little processors are great. Still I admire the large processor that can crunch more than anything else.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
The traces in the chips are 2.5 atoms thick, the distance between traces is 22nm for the most modern production technique, there is some room for squeezing it down a bit more, but there aren't many more significant drops in size that can be made.
GPGPU has a long way to go to be flexible enough for general purpose work.
Besides the real push needs to be the push for less power per op, at 1GF/watt, exaflops are a problem.
Did someone really just make another "this is all the power we will ever need" claim?