Beta
×

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!

World's Most Powerful x86 Supercomputer Boots Up in Germany

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the wherever-it-wants-to dept.

Supercomputing 151

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I need that... (-1, Offtopic)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782093)

...so I can first post mote quickly!

Re:I need that... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782123)

Or check tpyos.

Re:I need that... (5, Funny)

Qubit (100461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782151)

...so I can first post mote quickly!

let's fix you're spelling frist, then work on the spead of you're posting.

Re:I need that... (1)

Thundaaa Struk (1375331) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782219)

A few fries short of a happy meal eh?

Re:I need that... (3, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782289)

...so I can first post mote quickly!

let's fix you're spelling frist, then work on the spead of you're posting.

You head two many correctly sppeled wurds you must be a bot.

Re:I need that... (1)

Thundaaa Struk (1375331) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782459)

Did anyone else read this in a Fu Manchu voice? *giggle*

Re:I need that... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782763)

..your

Re:I need that... (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783045)

let's fix you're spelling frist, then work on the spead of you're posting

Mod parent funny, I got a chuckle out of that!

DID SOMEONE SAY BBQ? (4, Funny)

Rinikusu (28164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782119)

My fatass almost got excited for a second.. a supercomputer fueled by BBQ... :(

Re:DID SOMEONE SAY BBQ? (1)

Thundaaa Struk (1375331) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782175)

I thought the same thing.......turns out it was just a bunch of supermuc.

Re:DID SOMEONE SAY BBQ? (2, Funny)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782853)

No, it just runs hot enough to also work as a BBQ.

Re:DID SOMEONE SAY BBQ? (1, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783085)

No, it just runs hot enough to also work as a BBQ.

Silly you. Everyone knows everything is better with bacon, so it needs to be hot enough to fry BACON!

Re:DID SOMEONE SAY BBQ? (0)

Thundaaa Struk (1375331) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783157)

I'll have one SuperMuc w/Bacon please!!!

power to x86 (4, Interesting)

SlashDev (627697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782167)

powerful and x86 are oxymorons. Try the i860 architecture now THAT's a processor, it's ancient I know.

Re:power to x86 (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782375)

I'm pretty sure they'll be running them in x64 mode, not x86.

I'm sure modern Intel CPUs with multiple instruction dispatch and SSE for math instead of x87 will give the i860 a run for its money.

But yeah ... some of those old chips were cool (even if they didn't have a proper divide or sqrt instruction :-)

Re:power to x86 (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783107)

I'm pretty sure they'll be running them in x64 mode, not x86.

I'm sure modern Intel CPUs with multiple instruction dispatch and SSE for math instead of x87 will give the i860 a run for its money.

But yeah ... some of those old chips were cool (even if they didn't have a proper divide or sqrt instruction :-)

A big thank you to AMD for proving Intel wrong, the we really do need 64 bit processors. =)

Re:power to x86 (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40784023)

To be fair, Intel was right. We didn't need it at that time for most desktop apps. They never said we will never need 64-bit processors, just there were other more pressing issues they were tackling first. Seems it paid off pretty well for them. How is AMD fairing these days? When was the last time they were competitive, or turned a profit?

Re:power to x86 (4, Informative)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782517)

wow.. you're right. The i860 had 1 whole core and ran at up to 50mhz.

Imagine if they built this supercomputer out of those. Instead of 155,000, it would only need 8,370,000.

Now THAT's a super computer.

On a serious note, wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says:

On paper, performance was impressive for a single-chip solution; however, real-world performance was anything but. One problem, perhaps unrecognized at the time, was that runtime code paths are difficult to predict, meaning that it becomes exceedingly difficult to order instructions properly at compile time.

Sounds like an earlier version of Itanium

Re:power to x86 (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782819)

I worked with i860s years ago. They weren't bad for graphics, but the guys who had to do general-purpose work on the i860 workstations hated them.

Except the one who was promoted to i860 from the Clipper machine. I don't know why he always got the worst jobs.

Re:power to x86 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40783657)

Behold, an article from 1999 hailing the Post RISC era: http://arstechnica.com/features/1999/10/rvc/

To sum up: x86 (since the P4) are not x86 anymore, but have a x86 front end to a modern RISC core. They were even more "RISC" than official "RISC" chips of the era. (probably even more true now)

Re:power to x86 (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#40784003)

You do realize that RISC has nothing to do with the internals of the processor. It's about the instruction set. And the point was that you could be faster by having simple, fast instructions as opposed to complex, slow instructions. Turns out that Intel has been able to be faster with complex, fast instructions. How that happens inside the chip is irrelevant to the principle in question.

Re:power to x86 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40784183)

IIRC there were x86 chips that drew ~70 Watts. That's a lot of power.

Herzlichen Glückwunsch und (-1)

acidfast7 (551610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782187)

bis bald.

Re:Herzlichen Glückwunsch und (-1)

acidfast7 (551610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782221)

check my IP if you don't believe "mich"

Re:Herzlichen Glückwunsch und (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782347)

dam u str8 babygurl

Re:Herzlichen Glückwunsch und (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782437)

It's believe "mir". To believe (glauben) needs the dative case, not accusative (that would be "mich").
Now go and brush up on your German. Jeeeez.

Re:Herzlichen Glückwunsch und (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782801)

It's believe "mir". To believe (glauben) needs the dative case, not accusative (that would be "mich").
Now go and brush up on your German. Jeeeez.

Ich glaube bist du ein Luder. (captcha: stupidity)

Re:Herzlichen Glückwunsch und (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40783233)

Hehe, way to go with Google translate. Nobody would say a sentence like this in german, it sounds pretty weird. The common term for "bitch" is "Schlampe".

Power BBQ Chips (3, Funny)

j. andrew rogers (774820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782189)

I need to find myself some of these Power BBQ Chips mentioned in the summary. Fast and tangy without the downside of Cheetoh fingers.

Re:Power BBQ Chips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782323)

*bump*

And still... (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782197)

crysis won't run on highest settings. Sjeez.

Re:And still... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782513)

Update your jokes. I have literally maxed out Crysis on a laptop. All settings on ultra, 1920x1080, 16x MSAA, 16x anisotropic filtering. Doesn't dip below 60fps.

Wow (1)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782805)

Can you send a screencast?

At those settings, it must be better than real life.

Re:Wow (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782975)

I'll take some screencaps next time I play, but yeah, it does look "better" than real life, in the same way that a big-budget movie looks better than real life.

Of course, it all falls apart if you can see anyone's face clearly (especially if they're talking). Or if there's fire. Or something breaking. Or rotor wash. Or a million other things that look almost, but not entirely, right.

The game looks awesome, especially for its age (it's about on par with Skyrim, which came out about three years later). In some limited situations, I would even say it is photorealistic. But I'll also say that in most cases, it's only *mostly* photorealistic, and that in some cases, it's just downright bad (Crytek cannot for the life of them figure out facial animation).

Re:And still... (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783341)

Ok, next time I will say Crysis 2. Must be a nice laptop btw! Haven't tried Crysis here in years though, but referring to the game is a bit of a meme here. Just as, you insensitive clod ;)

Re:And still... (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40784053)

Yes, but can it run Cysis on my matrix of 3x3 (9 for those that can't multiply) monitors, and then real-time compress it to x.264 for streaming live all at full resolution (5760x3600 @ 60FPS) under wine so it can run on linux?

the real question (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782223)

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 ;-)

Re:the real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40783049)

I have access to a decent sized cluster. For giggles, I tried, and was able to do around 11.5 GHash/second.

Based on this, the cluster in the article would probably push between 400 and 500 GH/s, or about 650 high end video cards. :)

Re:the real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40783183)

Most REAL miners use FPGA's not CPU/GPUs

Re:the real question (2)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#40784093)

Most REAL miners use dynamite, pickaxes, shovels, and heavy machinery.

Re:the real question (1)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | more than 2 years ago | (#40784255)

Actually, I was going to say "Could you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those?", although I suppose that would be kind of a "Yo Dawg, I herd you like clusters of clusters" type of comment.

Re:the real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40784341)

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 ;-)

No because I assumed you had a functional brain and know that crysis isnt very powerful and doesnt require a big pc. It never has and never will.

See the problem with crysis is it ran like shit on powerful pcs so everyone thought it was from the future and uber powerful. Fact is it just wasnt optimized very well because crytek are shitty coders (there is a reason why only a few no name games have licensed their engines and those games sucked). If crysis is so super powerful then why did like the 3rd patch improve performance like 25%? Or why did a home made .ini tweak improve the game like 40%? Because the engine isnt optimized and it runs like shit.

Livermore Power BQI ? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782231)

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.

Re:Livermore Power BQI ? (0)

acidfast7 (551610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782317)

it's actually BBQ season in Deutschland ... I just got in from one :D

Just in time... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782233)

Windows 8 is a hog.

Crappy story title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782279)

Its Europe's most powerful x64 supercomputer, not the world's.

Re:Crappy story title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40783707)

It's the most powerful x86 supercomputer in the world the same way the world series is a world series.

Financial Modeling (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782351)

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.

what's it going to run? (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782371)

I skimmed the article and couldn't find mention of what it's going to be calculating.

My understanding (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782723)

I think it's designed to run complex calculations on how the price of tea in china is related to everything.

Re:what's it going to run? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782837)

I skimmed the article and couldn't find mention of what it's going to be calculating.

Well, it's a center for supercomputing -- so likely many different things.

It doesn't sound like it's built for a specific purpose, but the many things people use supercomputers for -- fancy physics simulations and the like seem popular. I'm sure some grad student will use it for something goofy now and then. No doubt industry will pay to get some time on it to solve some specific problems.

Re:what's it going to run? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783159)

I skimmed the article and couldn't find mention of what it's going to be calculating.

It's for figuring out how long it will take for Greece to pay back their Euro loans.

and at the rate Spain is going they'll need to add a few more CPUs.

Re:what's it going to run? (2)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40784073)

Greece's deficit.

My computer is way faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782377)

2.7-GHz, 8-core E5-2680 chips

My computer is way faster than that!!!

and contains 155,000 processor cores

Oops, Never mind!

Obligatory... (0)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782397)

Can it play Crysis?

Europe suddenly got bigger... (1)

mholve (1101) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782411)

It's EUROPE's fastest supercomputer - but the topic title says "World." Last time I checked, Europe wasn't quite THAT big...

Re:Europe suddenly got bigger... (0)

mholve (1101) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782439)

It's EUROPE's fastest supercomputer - but the topic title says "World." Last time I checked, Europe wasn't quite THAT big...

Ahh, x86. D'ohh! :p

Re:Europe suddenly got bigger... (2)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782641)

You might want to read the article again. It says it is Europe's fastest supercomputer AND the worlds fastest x86 supercomputer.

It's #4 on the top500, and the other 3 are not x86 (POWER BQC for #1 and #2, and SPARC VIIIfx for #3).

~1800 kilowatts (100 watt per CPU) (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782449)

That's quite a heater! Mine only goes up to 1.5 kilowatts.
So is Xeon a faster CPU than the i7?

More core (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783225)

Xeons are available in 8 and 10 core models (this computer uses the 8 core version) whereas i7s are only 4 and 6 core.

Re:More core (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783753)

This is a SB Xeon, the ten core models are Westmere based and so get significantly fewer MIPS/Watt (though they have larger cache and more QPI links so they're great for DB work).

Too much powah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782453)

... and in an instant, what was left of Germany's economy is vacuumed up by utility companies.

Slashdot Grab Bag (3, Funny)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782473)

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.

Re:Slashdot Grab Bag (3, Informative)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782719)

1) Does it run Linux?

Yes, SUSE

2) I for one, would like to welcome our new register constrained overlord.

Then you had better get started on its AI routines

3) Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?

Why yes, yes I can (and it would be huge, power hungry, and require it be run at the bottom of the ocean for heat-dissipation)
BTW, from TFA this system is cooled "by dumping water directly on the microprocessors", after which the warmed water is used to heat the rest of the building in winter

4) In Soviet Russia supercomputer run YOU!

Only if you get around to finishing Point 2

5) There is no God, I reject your fairytales.

You mean you won't buy them any more?
Damnit, what am I going to do with this gross of tails I tore off of faeries last week? Not cool, man...

Re:Slashdot Grab Bag (1)

Discopete (316823) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783921)

BTW, from TFA this system is cooled "by dumping water directly on the microprocessors", after which the warmed water is used to heat the rest of the building in winter

Um, the article actually says "Aquasar system pumps water directly over the microprocessors" not "dumping water directly on"

Re:Slashdot Grab Bag (1, Funny)

slew (2918) | more than 2 years ago | (#40784031)

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.

6) ???
7) Profit!

It would had been the worlds fastest. (1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782493)

But they couldn't get the money out of Greese fast enough.

free delivery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782549)

$31.8 million in processors....if they bought them from newegg.

What about CE? (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782571)

> 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.

Too bad they didn't name it... (0)

swamp boy (151038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782581)

Das Packard Bell -- ist nicht jus fur Walmart anymur

VA Must Disclose Documents to MK-ULTRA Victims (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782609)

VA Must Disclose Documents to MK-ULTRA Victims
http://cryptogon.com/?p=30509 [cryptogon.com]

July 24th, 2012

Via: Courthouse News Service:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/23/48617.htm [courthousenews.com]

"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."

I can hear the chants ... (4, Funny)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782699)

We're number four!!
We're number four!!
We're number four!!

Re:I can hear the chants ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782995)

It's Germany so shouldn't it be

We want number two!
We want number two!
We want number two!

Re:I can hear the chants ... (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783575)

Looks like Hollywood has got prior art [imdb.com] .

Shall we . . . (1)

Traciatim (1856872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782727)

play a game?

All that power... (-1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782747)

...and yet, only limited to four GB of RAM.

Damn the man ('s architecture) for holding us down.

Re:All that power... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783779)

x86 hasn't been limited to 4GB of ram since the Pentium Pro!

Unrelated, but I am curious (1)

Kaptain Kruton (854928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782755)

Has anyone created a 'super computer' out of raspberry pi's yet?

Re:Unrelated, but I am curious (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#40782933)

Has anyone created a 'super computer' out of raspberry pi's yet?

With what supplies? There are not enough of them for single-unit buyers, let alone to buy the bulk necessary to build a super-computer. Yes, people could use the schematics and build tens (if not hundreds) of thousands to build a super-computer, cluster whatever. But the economics would simply not scale (compared to buying already stuff by the truckload.)

Now, a better question would be "has anyone created a Beowulf cluster" with a bunch of rasberry pi's? That is a more reasonable enterprise, me thinks.

Re:Unrelated, but I am curious (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783203)

The proper phraseology around these parts is, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of raspberry pi's". Alternatively, you also allowed to imagine beowulf clusters of supercomputers, iPad 3's, and Jeri Ryan.

.stl torrent plz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782811)

for my 3d printer

Q: Why are we still on x86 and 64bit and not 128? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782855)

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?

Re:Q: Why are we still on x86 and 64bit and not 12 (2)

Jaywu (1126885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783417)

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.

Re:Q: Why are we still on x86 and 64bit and not 12 (1)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783789)

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.

Re:Q: Why are we still on x86 and 64bit and not 12 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40783547)

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

Re:Q: Why are we still on x86 and 64bit and not 12 (4, Informative)

six (1673) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783609)

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.

at first glance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40782857)

"...1.6-GHz POWER BBQ chips."

That Clock Speed Sucks (2, Insightful)

barlevg (2111272) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783041)

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.

Re:That Clock Speed Sucks (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783553)

I think we're going to be stuck in the same ghz range until we're past silicon.

That's what I remember being told, anyway...

Re:That Clock Speed Sucks (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783891)

Max turbo on the E5-2680 is 3.5Ghz and with a higher IPC than any previous processor it's going to get more done per core per wall time than anything but the E5-2687W (150W TDP) or the E5-2690 which is significantly more expensive (almost 20% more).

Re:That Clock Speed Sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40784291)

You are incorrect. You can get superlinear speedups, for example when you parallelize a problem across multiple machines and each machine needs to hold less data. If you cross the threshold from out-of-cache to in-cache, the resulting system can run at more than Nx throughput.

it must have a *really* fast boot time (1)

goffster (1104287) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783075)

with all those cpus. :)

Finally... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40783201)

Something that can boot Windows 8 in a reasonable amout of time...

The Super Computer Race is a Sad Scam (-1, Troll)

Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783337)

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/ [wordpress.com]

Someone had to say it... (0)

cephus440 (828210) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783367)

... Can you play Doom on it?

Re:Someone had to say it... (3, Funny)

cephus440 (828210) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783389)

I'm glad they didn't use Cyrix CPUs.

Re:Someone had to say it... (1)

zeroryoko1974 (2634611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783487)

No, the video drivers cause the game to crash. Still waiting for a patch

I'm Hungry (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783715)

I want a to get a Super Mac.

x86? good luck with that... (-1, Troll)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 2 years ago | (#40783873)

What good is a 'Supercomputer' with only 4GB of address space?

Anti-Virus Protection (1)

Dr.Who (146770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40784301)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?