×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fujitsu Announces 16-core SPARC64 IXfx (and the Supercomputer It Powers)

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the soul-of-a-new-machine dept.

Japan 68

First time accepted submitter A12m0v writes with a link to Fujitsu's announcement of its next generation of supercomputer, from which he pastes: "PRIMEHPC FX10 runs on the newly-developed SPARC64 IXfx processors, which offer a very significant boost in performance over the SPARC64 VIIIfx processor on which they are based and which power the K computer. Each processor has 16 cores and achieves world-class standalone performance levels of 236.5 gigaflops and performance per watt of over 2 gigaflops." Not that K is any slouch.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

68 comments

sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971694)

I was hoping to read it ran Solaris, but alas...

Re:sigh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971738)

Current Solaris license fees would bankrupt you if it did!

Re:sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971832)

Here's to wishful thinking that Solaris can survive the death of SUN.

Re:sigh... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37983866)

Do Solaris licenses per CPU mean per CPUs, or per the actual number of computers that would be running it? B'cos 8000+ CPUs in one computer counts as only... one computer. Or do they charge per #seats?

Also, given how OpenIndianna, Illumos and Nexenta are forks of Solaris, how do they not support Sparc? What other market is there - do they seriously expect people to use them on their Xeon or Opteron servers?

Re:sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37974342)

Current Solaris license fees cost considerably less than RHEL license fees (and cost the same as OUL fees), unless they're going with a free community supported distribution (as OpenIndianna, Illumos and Nexenta don't yet fully support Sparc), it comes down to a matter of preference more than anything else.

Re:sigh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971840)

It cannot and will not ever run Solaris. The simple reason is that Fujitsu has developed this platform outside the Oracle agreement and thus they cannot run Solaris on it.

Re:sigh... (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972504)

It cannot and will not ever run Solaris.

You sound like a lawyer. I think you're on the wrong web site; this is slashdot - we're geeks here.

Sure, they probably won't be able to sell it commercially with Solaris - but I bet that Solaris runs just fine. Might need a device driver or two, but there's a fully supported DDK to make writing them easy. I think that Fujitsu engineers would be slacking if they *didn't* have a prototype unit running Solaris in their lab.

// posted from my x86 laptop running solaris

Re:sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37972620)

Why? Linux is by far the best choice for supercomputers.

IBM even decided Linux was preferable over AIX on their POWER7 based Blue Waters supercomputer (although it's now canned, it got past the point of hardware evaluation). That was not for lack of AIX group pushing to have it run their OS (and AIX gets preferential treatment internally). So it's not like some technical or legal disconnect between Oracle and Fujitsu was the only thing holding it back -- no, Oracle would have loved to get Solaris on the world's fastest supercomputer, and probably would have given it to them for nothing just for the publicity.

Oracle? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971704)

Sun was using Fujitsu SPARC64 processors on some of their servers before the buyout. Are there any news on whether Oracle is going to develop new servers with SPARC64 IXfx processors?

Re:Oracle? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971754)

Rumor from engineer friends is no. They will resell some Fujitsu servers co-branded with Oracle and that's it.
The longer term roadmap is even more grim for SPARC. I still have a SunBlade on my desk that works like brand new, but sadly is about as useful as the SGI under the desk :/

Re:Oracle? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971824)

Not true. Oracle will continue to jointly develop the SPARC64 with Fujitsu. The servers produced today, dubbed the M-series are in fact sold and produced under Oracle logistics -- not Fujitsu. Fujitsu is a reseller of this technology, so if you buy a server from them, you're having it delivered from Oracle. Its Fujitsu who is the reseller. Further updates to the M-series will include moving toward the LDoms technology where there is an expected convergence with the M-series and T-series sometime 2015 according to the road map. I fail to see how this is a "grim" roadmap.

The Fujitsu computer that is the FX10 has been developed outside the Oracle/Fujitsu framework and this is one of the reasons that it doesn't run Solaris. The Oracle agreement does not cover the FX10 framework. The VIIIfx CPU is being fitted in Oracle chassis and boards today and expected to be available shortly. Though there are some difficulties with this chip with respect to power consumption and cooling, but nothing insurmountable. From the little that I know, the IXfx CPU is an extension of the VIIIfx and the jury is still out on whether this chip will indeed be compatible with the VIIIfx chassis. Suffice to say that its generic name in contrast to previous SPARC64 chips, it should be possible to integrate it. However looking at the design specs of the FX10 computer it seems as though a lot of the platform is near die or on die. Thus it could be a special chip which won't be suitable for general purpose computers.

Re:Oracle? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37972650)

That is not correct -- the M series is entirely a Fujitsu design. I know because I was at one time privvy to the roadmaps.

Re:Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37975998)

That is not correct -- the M series is entirely a Fujitsu design. I know because I was at one time privvy to the roadmaps.

No you're The one that is not correct. the M-Series are co-designed. I know this because I work for Oracle Supporting them.

Re:Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37976252)

It may have been "co designed", but all the real heavy lifting (CPUs, interconnect) are designed by Fujitsu. Sun's enterprise SPARC CPUs had been dead in the water for over a decade, so they had to jump on the Fujitsu bandwagon. No, Niagara servers don't cut it. T4 looks to be moving in the right direction, but it will not be enough.

Not sure what Sun/Oracle contributed to the design. Perhaps some chassis and board design, even some IO chips, maybe.

Re:Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981294)

Sun was just a reseller. I remember taking the whole M9000 rack apart when they were still in development, everything was designed by Fujitsu.

Even the T-series are not a Sun design, but rather designed by a small startup which subsequently got bought out by Sun.

Ironic that Fujitsu was able to design better and faster UltraSPARC processors than Sun themselves. Ironic, but not surprising.

Re:Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981486)

Does not surprise me that Fujitsu designed everything.

T series, I call Sun design because they are now bought by Sun. The current T series are pretty crap anyway, really. They might have had a bit of potential for some workloads if they were released a year earlier, but with such horrible single thread performance, they're really unsuitable for most things (including most database work, despite what Oracle might try to sell you. T4 with OOOE might be a bit more interesting, it's still a pretty weak core, though.

Re:Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981130)

I am not incorrect -- those systems were designed by Fujitsu. Sun just resold them. I know exactly what I am writing about. If I wrote they are a Fujitsu design, then they are a Fujitsu design. You can be employed by Oracle until the cows come home, but it does not change what I know first hand.

You never know who is on the other end of the wire, my dear Oracle supporter.

Re:Oracle? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37975970)

liar, Oracle had nothing to do with the Sparc 64 VII, VII+, VIIIfxe "venus" development. Those are purely Fujitsu's design, Oracle only sell servers such as M using it, they have neither the resources nor brains to design such a thing.

Re:Oracle? (1)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 2 years ago | (#37976024)

Yeah, it's a shame. A buddy of mine just got rid of his Ultra3 workstation because it was too slow to be usable (doing software development running NB7.1, GlassFish and PostgreSQL). My old Ultra20 is still usable, but it's not really "snappy" (and not a SPARC system, despite the name).

Re:Oracle? (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971820)

I don't think Oracle is interested in this market. They wanted the subset of Sun hardware that is good for databases and web apps (i.e. the Tx line), but they aren't really interested in being in the general-purpose server market. They want to be able to control the entire stack from the hardware to the applications, and everything in the middle. There are two reasons for this. The obvious one is that it lets them really tune for performance out of the box. The second, and more important, is that it lets them offer support contracts for the entire machine. If anything goes wrong with it, hardware, operating system, database, or in the business apps, you won't get your in-house IT staff to fix it, you'll just call Oracle. These contracts can be really expensive, and still seem like a good deal compared to keeping a few admins on staff.

Re:Oracle? (5, Informative)

sleigher (961421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971876)

Right, except have you ever called Oracle support? Had a sev 1 recently. We have 24x7x4 hr call back. Did I get a call back after 4 hours? no. 6 hours? no. 8 hours? no. It was 3 days later we actually got a manager to have a meeting with us to figure out why we can't get support for our hardware. Go ahead, get rid of your staff. Depend on Oracle to help you. That's a great idea. I assure you, you will not regret it.

Re:Oracle? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971896)

Nope, never called them, and never heard anything good from people who have - I'm not recommending buying Oracle, just outlining their thinking with regard to the Sun acquisition.

Breach of Contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971924)

Are your Lawyers going to issue a suit against Oracle over this? This is a clear breach of contract.
ORacle will want to settle ASAP. You may even get an onsite engineer.
Go on, you know it makes sense.

Re:Breach of Contract (2)

sleigher (961421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971970)

I would love to. My point is I warned the company to stop buying Sun hardware when the acquisition went through. I knew it was gonna be like this. They are giving us dedicated back line support people we can call directly. I am sure that is sustainable by Oracle as well...

Re:Oracle? (1)

assantisz (881107) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978212)

Not my experience at all. We never had any trouble with Oracle support. Sure, the online portal sucks donkey balls but getting them to reply to us within the contracted time has never been a problem. If it happened to you, you should make a stink with your account representative.

Re:Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37976800)

These have a part of the cache configurable as a streaming store, interesting SIMD extensions and they are water cooled, with strict environmental requirements. They would need to use a different process and possibly do something about the instruction set to create a processor fitting for commercial environments.

Wat? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971766)

Dose it run Diablo 3?

Relevent specifications (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971782)

I'm disappointed at this development. 'Icsfics' is a lot less fun to say than 'veeeeefix'.

Iyt is a turd of gaqt87hjewb, ,j (0, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971816)

the turd tiurd turnd 9uoirjl3woilk3,m4 enlknm./, lb;l .libelious tuojnj3ejvwln,m 43n ,vsiy8tl,iuhjb s.w,..l.l.l.l assbunghole by43.jb/;.bsaj inter983yiujk iwelus87aksIUIUILIU;h;h assbungholes the penguine u98oi,, ,,,jb.lbp--p-p-p-cccc ASSASSASSASSASSASSASS

First time accepted submitter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971848)

Can we please stop with the "first time accepted submitter" bullshit? Have the idiots taken over after Rob left?

Re:First time accepted submitter (0)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972014)

Have the idiots taken over after Rob left?

No, long before then (see the World of Warcraft achievement spots in your user page...)

I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971884)

But for a reasonable price , not the silly money that Sun wanted for their desktop systems. I'd love to have an up to date solaris box to develop on.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971920)

What's wrong with OpenSolaris on an x86 system?

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972696)

What's wrong with OpenSolaris on an x86 system?

1. OpenSolaris, and 2. x86, maybe?

But seriously now: try to beat a 16 cores SPARC T3 if you have anything heavily multithreaded and/or compute intensive. Even the most recent x86 CPUs are still lagging behind... and GPU acceleration prevalent in x86-world, though fine, takes you only so far.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37976228)

The T3 is crap for anything compute-intensive. The whole point was "throughput computing," not processing power, and even at that it's pretty poor. Look at the speccpu benchmarks sometime.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981422)

Solaris 10 and 11 are supported on x86 and available for free download [oracle.com] .
There's even a VirtualBox VM image linked from that page.

The Solaris 11 release candidate is also available to registered developers on OTN.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972698)

Its no longer supported and wasn't as good as sparc solaris anyway. Plus I'd like something other than x86 for a change.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37975902)

from the opensolaris web site: OpenSolaris 2009.06 was the last OpenSolaris binary release published by Sun Microsystems and is no longer available for download.

unlike BSD, opensolaris is dead. abandoned graveyard dead.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37985868)

Yeah, but it was forked just in time before Oracle pulled the plug. You might want to check out OpenIndiana [openindiana.org]

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

inflex (123318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971922)

Never thought that their "lower end" gear was too expensive, like their Opteron workstations, but that said, I'm probably biased because I was with the Sun Developer program for my software - so the hardware was likely strongly discounted.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 2 years ago | (#37976192)

Maybe not. I bought one of their Ultra20 workstations new for around US$800 and that was without any discounts. More expensive than building an equivalent box from parts, but the parts are top notch (Tyan motherboard, nVidia NV280 graphics card). My only complaint was having to track down a funky "SPUD" bracket to mount a second hard drive.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972048)

Out of curiosity, are there any remaining applications for solaris where hardware considerations(presumably local access to the video card; but there might be others) would drive customer purchases of a desktop sparc, rather than whatever the Dell rep is trying to get rid of and an SSH or Sun Ray Software and a sparc server?

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972088)

I have one of Sun's cheap workstations - the Blade 100, which was 100% cheap commodity crap plus an UltraSPARC CPU. The problem is that they don't have anything like the economies of scale required to make cheap chips. If Intel is selling 100 chips for every one that Sun is selling (which is quite optimistic for Sun / Oracle), then the unit cost of the SPARC is going to be a lot bigger, even if the two chips are the same size and made on the same process, just because all of the one-off costs (including R&D) are spread over a much smaller number of chips. A cheap Sun workstation is still likely to be a few hundred dollars more than an equivalent x86 system, even if all of the components other than the CPU are the same, and that limits them to people who really need to be able to develop on SPARC...

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972796)

"A cheap Sun workstation is still likely to be a few hundred dollars more than an equivalent x86 system"

A couple of hundred I could handle. What annoyed me was back in the day a desktop sparc would be at least 50% more than the equvalent x86 and when you'd added in the optional (!) keyboard, monitor etc it could easily be twice as much. For high end kit you'd be looking at 3 or 4x the price.

As for ebay , there are some bargains on there but I need up to date hardware and OS really, to match what I use at work.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37976684)

"Back in the day" there weren't many x86 workstations that could do what a Sparc or other Unix workstation could do. Sun even sold some x86 machines which didn't do too well. Of course the workstations sold for much more than a lowly PC. There weren't x86 workstations at the time, that cpu was intended for very low end commodity home and business machines. It took a lot of Intel resources to beef things up, and I doubt they would have done it without competition from x86 clones.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972546)

If you're happy with UltraSPARC IIIi's, try some Sun Blade 1500 (1 ultrasparc) or SunBlade 2500 (2 ultrasparcs) desktop deals on eBay. I've got a couple of those very fine machines for less than $100 each, and I'm running Debian Squeeze, FreeBSD, and Solaris on them just fine.

But you're right. I wish we could buy SPARC IV- or later based desktops anytime soon. At this point in time, only FUJITSU would probably consider producing some, if we manage to convince them by showing enough interest. Oracle is way out of touch with the developers' community, they're a lost cause.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37975642)

It'd be nice if there were *any* sparc based desktops available.

I don't think Oracle is selling anything for the desktop except the SunRay systems. Not even x86.

Re:I wish someone would put sparc on the desktop (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37985794)

Sun used to offer SunBlade workstations, and some priced @ $7000. I agree that was steep, but standard for its time. Also there was a company called Integrix that made SparcStations, as well as another called Tatung. They're either gone, or changed.

As far as the RISC based computers go, 2 of the top CPUs - Alpha & PA-RISC are dead, Sparc is more alive due to FJ than Oracle, MIPS is alive but nobody uses them in computers anymore - only in routers, and it seems to have lost its games console to POWER variants (I think POWER now owns the games market). Itanium is overpriced garbage, and so one is stuck w/ the x64s from Intel & AMD. I'm not counting ARM here. Let's see how OpenRISC evolves.

I myself prefer RISC computers. I do wish someone makes an OpenSparc CPU based on UltraSparc (whatever its number is by now) and then an unixstation based on it running either BSD or Linux, and see OpenIndiana ported there. It would be a good machine to devlop on. As for the other question above about OpenSolaris on x86, that's so passe.

Pricing would be interesting! (2)

gentryx (759438) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971936)

Fujitsu is fishing in the same waters as IBM does with their BlueGene machines: both lines are designed to deliver 20 PFLOPS and both are traditional systems in the sense that you don't have accelerators like GPUs, which are still awkward to program for the average physicist. Thus, to potential buyers the TCO would be interesting. From what I've heard BlueGene/Q is twice as power efficient [green500.org] as the Sparc VIIIfx design, but those were just 8-cores, not 16-cores.

So, assuming comparable total power consumptions and a affordable price tag, Fujitsu could snatch several deals from big blue, perhaps even the recently failed Blue Waters [slashdot.org] , although my money is on Cray for that machine.

Re:Pricing would be interesting! (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972212)

Indeed, 236 GFLOPS on a single CPU is quite impressive. Thats over twice the performance of an OC 2600K (4.6ghz.)

The 8-core VIIIFX chip pushed 128 GFLOPS with 760 million transistors on 45nm .. this IXFX is I guess marketed as a drop-in replacement chip so it must be using a smaller process size to fit in the same socket.

Re:Pricing would be interesting! (1)

Macman408 (1308925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973536)

A high-end GPU will do 5 to 20 times as many FLOPS, at 3-6x the efficiency. Quite possibly at a lower cost, too, given that they're relatively high-volume parts, compared to a SPARC. And before anybody complains about "well yeah, but GPUs can't do X", well, that's what they get for using FLOPS for a benchmark. Unless what they're interested in is FLOPS, they really shouldn't use them as a benchmark!

Re:Pricing would be interesting! (1)

joib (70841) | more than 2 years ago | (#37975354)

Oh? So how come the VIIIFX based "K computer" then, apart from being the current #1 in performance, also beats the GPGPU clusters (with the latest Nvidia Fermi cards) in flops/watt on the latest top500 list: http://top500.org/list/2011/06/100 [top500.org] ? And heck, that's on linpack, which should be the pretty much optimal workload for a GPU.

Re:Pricing would be interesting! (1)

Macman408 (1308925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977142)

What you're looking for is the Green500 list [green500.org] , where the K computer is #6; behind an ATI GPU+Intel i5 cluster and two NVIDIA Fermi+Intel Xeon clusters (two IBM Blue Gene Q prototypes sit at the top). The first three are fairly small (100+ on the top500), but the NVIDIA systems sit at #5 and #54 on the top500 as well, so it doesn't appear to be a scalability issue. I have no knowledge of the design tradeoffs of the individual systems, but I'd say that it's fairly impressive that both the top500 and the Green500 have so many GPUs in the top 10, given that they're both CPU-dominated lists.

Re:Pricing would be interesting! (1)

joib (70841) | more than 2 years ago | (#37982786)

What you're looking for is the Green500 list [green500.org]

Indeed, but the site was down when I wrote my previous reply so I had to resort to the top500 list and calculating flops/watt for the few top entries manually. :)

In any case, as one can see from the list, the best GPU machine manages to beat the K machines by a factor of 1.66, a far cry from the factor of 3-6 you originally claimed. And most GPU machines fall behind the K.

I think the sparc viiifx is quite impressive, it gets very good flops/watt without being a particularly exotic design. Basically it's just a standard OoO CPU with a couple extra FP units and lots of registers clocking at a little lower frequency than usual. No long vectors with scatter/gather memory ops, no GPU's, no low power very slow embedded CPU's like the Blue Genes etc.

I have no knowledge of the design tradeoffs of the individual systems, but I'd say that it's fairly impressive that both the top500 and the Green500 have so many GPUs in the top 10, given that they're both CPU-dominated lists.

Large GPGPU clusters are still a relatively new phenomenon, give it a few years and I suspect you'll see a lot more of them.

Re:Pricing would be interesting! (1)

Macman408 (1308925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37989180)

In any case, as one can see from the list, the best GPU machine manages to beat the K machines by a factor of 1.66, a far cry from the factor of 3-6 you originally claimed. And most GPU machines fall behind the K.

I was going by the per-chip benchmarks of both the SPARC and of GPUs, since that was what was at hand.

I think most of these GPU clusters have very high-powered CPUs (eg Xeons) in them. I wonder what the perf per watt would be if you replaced the Xeon with, say, a low-power embedded chip, like an ARM (or an Atom, if you must). Granted, that further limits the types of computations that your supercomputer can do, but it might get you a lot closer to that 3-6x factor for the chip alone.

Large GPGPU clusters are still a relatively new phenomenon, give it a few years and I suspect you'll see a lot more of them.

No doubt. When I was doing my master's research, they were just starting to look interesting. I was working in reconfigurable hardware, but had one or two peers playing around with GPUs. That's one of those things that people keep looking at, and occasionally use for something, but has never really taken off like GPGPU has.

Re:Pricing would be interesting! (1)

gentryx (759438) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977346)

I'm doing my PhD in HPC. From my perspective GPUs do indeed offer a lot of GFLOPS but it's often impossible to max them out. Especially for stencil codes [wikipedia.org] (read: virtually all physical simulation codes) this is hardly possible because of the low operational intensity [lbl.gov] of stencils. CPUs achieve much higher efficiencies here because they can do cache blocking. The caches on e.g. Fermi are much too small to do that well. So no: in this case a GPU won't necessarily yield you a higher performance or efficiency

As for the pricing: in scientific computing we typically care for double precision. For that you have to by Nvidia Tesla cards, which cost several thousand dollars, each. I don't know the prices of the Sparc chips, but I doubt they'll be higher.

Re:Pricing would be interesting! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979036)

Actually, AMD's top-tier cards can handle double precision - just at one-fourth the single precision rate, instead of the Tesla's one-half. This includes the consumer cards, which are much, much cheaper, though they do lack the Tesla's capacity for ECC. Nvidia's consumer cards have their double precision rate capped to one-fourth in the driver, so don't bother with those, as their single precision speed is much slower than the AMD cards' - less than half as fast, if I recall.

Bear in mind, however, that if you choose to go with consumer cards, you might have to reduce the clock speed, as they're designed to run faster (and hotter) than the computing cards. If you have the power and cooling capacity for that, of course, then it should be fine.

please, Fujitsu, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37975276)

Put one of these on an inexpensive ITX motherboard so that we'll all have an alternative to the x86 hegemony...

Re:please, Fujitsu, please (1)

Brane2 (608748) | more than 2 years ago | (#37975750)

I second that.

I'm from penguin crowd, but nevertheless it would be really nice to work on some decent, many-cores non-x86-crap design...

Ideally, on dual socket board...

2Gigaflop/W only?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37976278)

I assume this CPU is manufactured on 45nm technology. The Shenwei CPU in the Chinese supercomputer from few days back was on 65nm, and at 45W each chip, it yield more than 3 Gigaflop per watt. Anyone has detail comparison btw these 2 CPUs? What's the # like for nVidia GPU? This is just comparison on CPU/GPU. Green500 2011/06 listed NNSA/SC Blue Gene/Q Prototype 2 as most efficient at 2GFlop/W for whole system. I guess CPU in Blue Gene delivers way more than either one of these.

'tofu' interconnect, a 6D Mesh/Toroid? (1)

adinb (897001) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981140)

maybe someone with a more recent HPC CS degree can break down this interconnect/routing architecture to me? I loved playing on 3D toroidal meshes, especially on SIMD MasPars (communication penalty was 1 instruction cycle & we could select which processors would execute an instruction...from what I remember).

Are there any advantages to this topology for certain classes of problems (the MasPars were awesome for matrix math & image processing) ? Or is the sole advantage in routing speed/interconnect traversal?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...