Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Japanese Supercomputer K Hits 10.51 Petaflops

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the street-value-of-this-thing dept.

Supercomputing 125

coondoggie writes "The Japanese supercomputer ranked #1 on the Top 500 fastest supercomputers broke its own record this week by hitting 10 quadrillion calculations per second (10.51 petaflops), according to its operators, Fujitsu and Riken.
The supercomputer 'K' consists of 864 racks, comprising a total of 88,128 interconnected CPUs and has a theoretical calculation speed of 11.28 petaflops, the companies said."

cancel ×

125 comments

And the answer was... (2, Funny)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960156)

42

Re:And the answer was... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960174)

infinity minus 1

Re:And the answer was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960298)

We already knew that. It was supposed to be working on the question.

Re:And the answer was... (1)

deains (1726012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960564)

They forgot to carry the 4. Luckily they didn't reverse the polarity as well, or it may have meant the end of the universe as we know it.

Re:And the answer was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961360)

"69, dudes!"

Re:And the answer was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37963520)

Actually,

Significant advance . . . (1)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960160)

Fully boots Windows in under three minutes!

Re:Significant advance . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960212)

Microsoft windows vista "whopping great supercomputer" edition?

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960240)

Really? because we keep getting Authentication Error 0xc004f050

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960456)

You've got to remember that booting the OS doesn't mean that the login or MIC mechanisms actually work, it just means they're running.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960290)

I can cold boot to desktop in under a min with Win7 maybe you need to upgrade your windows 98 or at least uninstall that horrible Bonzi Buddy. I fucking hate that purple monkey he still haunts my dreams.

Re:Significant advance . . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960430)

M$ lackey

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960464)

The only way I can think you can boot to desktop on Win7 cold is if you mean liquid nitrogen cold with severe overclocking.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961222)

Cold boot: Start the computer after power has been disconnected for a period of time.
Warm boot: A simple reset.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961318)

Duh. I know what a cold boot means. But there isn't a PC that can cold boot inside of 1 minute using either a regular BIOS or EFI to a Windows desktop in under a minute unless it's overclocked.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961440)

BUILD showed off a laptop that cold booted Win8 to desktop in 5-8 seconds. I thought that was pretty good.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

f()rK()_Bomb (612162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961446)

i can boot to windows 7 from cold in 30seconds. 15 seconds of that is the bios setting up. SSD's are fast.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962840)

It takes longer than 15 secs for Windows to start up everything. (Booting to a usable state != booting to the point where something is on the screen. The claim was to boot to a desktop - which means all all initial services up and no further initialization being performed.)

Re:Significant advance . . . (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961876)

Even if booting off the fastest SSD available, booting into any version of Windows will take at least 20 seconds. Dropping in a CPU with infinity processing power will not reduce this. That's because during the POST process, there are wait states timed against the RTC conducting all sorts of hardware polling to enure everything connected is alive. It's not a bug, it's a feature. A standardized process. You can optimize BIOS settings however by turning off unused hardware, features, and SATA ports to decrease POST times however. But again, at minimum, POST times will never be instant for an IBM based PC. Also, Windows performs similar hardware polling against the RTC at bootup as well.

It should be noted that an Apple MacBook with an SSD boots almost instantly. But that should come to no surprise because Apple owns both the hardware and OS. They can optimize as they wish.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

blackicye (760472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963320)

It should be noted that an Apple MacBook with an SSD boots almost instantly. But that should come to no surprise because Apple owns both the hardware and OS. They can optimize as they wish.

The 13" i7 / 4GB / 256GB SSD Macbook Air takes as long to boot OSX Lion as it does to boot Windows 7.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963354)

Depends on the PC. VMs of Win7 and Server 2008 R2 are near instant. Depending on the PC though, Win7 will boot almost as fast as Lion for sure. But, on some PCs, the POST process takes far longer than the OS bootup process itself.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963568)

Yeah, but a VM image isn't a cold boot. A plain VM image is essentially a warm boot (a lot of the system is already initialized) and most VMs are quite capable of handling VM images that are partially into a boot (since the first phase of the bootstrap really doesn't do anything that's important to a VM).

If you're going to consider VMs and other such hacks, then Coreboot + Linux + image of a ramdisk in Flash would give you a 3 second bootup time to a console, just not to a GUI desktop. With a few additional hacks, you can probably make an image of an already-started X server that can be loaded in to avoid having that start up. And so on. But the more hacks and shortcuts you take, the less you can justify calling that a cold boot to desktop. Lukewarm, maybe, since parts are "cold boot", but the rest gains performance by being warm boot in all but name and not by actually being fast from cold.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963602)

Just so we are on the same page here...

Cold boot = When hardware is first powered on engaging a lengthy (but thorough) POST followed by the bootstrapping of the OS.
Warm boot = Followed by a restart of the system through the OS or a hardware reset button. Hardware POST time is reduced due to certain hardware checks being omitted prior to the bootstrapping of the OS.
Hot boot = Starting or rebooting an OS after the POST process. For example in Windows 98, you could perform a hot boot by holding down the shift key and selecting "restart".

Technically, starting a VM from an original shutdown state is a cold boot even if it is emulated and certain POST checks have been omitted. But yes, from a functional standpoint, I agree, it's more of a warm boot if anything. As for booting from hibernation within any OS, I don't count the OS as booting up as it's just in a state of resuming. Nothing special there.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962620)

Toshiba L755D-U stock everything, Win7HP: 57sec from cold. After that: virtual machines.

OSX: 3m40s
SuSE 11.4: 1m14s
XPSP3: 23s
Win2K: 1m24s

Timed with this reply box open.

My netbook (stock EeePC 1008HA) boots XP Home in just over a minute.

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961816)

Turning on fast boot in the bios and having a SSD is all you need.

Re:Significant advance . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961752)

2001 called. They want their Win98 PC back. Damn, you're so old-hat. Get with the times man!

Re:Significant advance . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960328)

But its using server bios, so it still takes half an hour to get to loading Windows.

Re:Significant advance . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960358)

Highly doubtful. Even if it booted windows at all, it probably has hundreds of GB of ram (per node) and would still likely need hours to POST.

Re:Significant advance . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961104)

On 88,128 Sparc CPUs?

Re:Significant advance . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961772)

Fully boots Windows in under three minutes!

Now THAT was funny!

Re:Significant advance . . . (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963626)

I wasn't aware Windows still ran on SPARC.

Great (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960184)

You can play a wicked game of Space Invaders on it !

Re:Great (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960368)

How about a nice game of chess instead?

Re:Great (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960480)

No thanks. Blew up four worlds and sent a fifth tumbling into a black hole after GNU chess accidentally crossed pipes with Galactic Thermonuclear War IV, the Sequel.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960470)

Space Invaders on 11+ petaflops? Nah.

I'd set it up to mine Bitcoin...

Re:Great (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961422)

But you have to hit the turbo button first...

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37963274)

Raytraced Quake(1) would be the only obvious purpose.

/ aliquis too tired to login.

Hentai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960192)

Finally enough power to render 3D tentacle porn in real-time!

Skynet is bigger (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960210)

consists of 864 racks, comprising a total of 88,128 interconnected CPUs

Where goes the border between a supercomputer and a cluster?

Re:Skynet is bigger (3, Informative)

Plasmaphysiker (2458212) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960242)

consists of 864 racks, comprising a total of 88,128 interconnected CPUs

Where goes the border between a supercomputer and a cluster?

Communication time. Trying to run a massively parallelized plasma physics simulation on a mere cluster is essentially a waste of time. The scaling is terrible.

Re:Skynet is bigger (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960342)

Decrease communication time in a cluster, and you get a supercomputer?

Re:Skynet is bigger (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960554)

Basically, yes. The distinction is whether a system is tightly-coupled or loosely-coupled.

Re:Skynet is bigger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960592)

These days, yes. A supercomputer can be pretty much a tightly bound cluster with an absurdly fast interconnect (Infiniband and friends). It doesn't stop being a cluster, btw, it can be both a cluster and supercomputer, though some small supercomputers might still be shared memory machines.

Back in the day (80s/early 90s), there used to be a slightly stricter definition of supercomputer, to do with "superconnection" (the property of having way, way, more networking than you need, basically, think of every point being connected to every other point with a full-bandwidth point to point link), but it would be absurd not to call the fastest computing system in the world a supercomputer just because it's a linux cluster.

 

Re:Skynet is bigger (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960716)

A linux cluster using a hypercube topology of infiniband connections would give you a fully-connected system with full-bandwidth between any two points. A butterfly network will do that but in a slightly smaller subset of cases. A fat tree would give a much smaller subset, but it would still be superconnected. A fat tree using 10 gig ethernet wouldn't have the raw bandwidth for a superconnection but it could still be considered a supercomputer (just).

Re:Skynet is bigger (3, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960540)

Technically, a cluster can be a supercomputer if it is tightly-coupled, which basically means high bandwidth, low latency and as little overlap on the fabric as possible. (ie: 88,128 PCs linked via the Internet could be considered a grid but it would not be considered a supercomputer. The same number of PCs in a server room using a hundred or so switches, with each switch stuffed to the gills, would be considered a regular cluster. The same PCs in the same room using high-end switches linked as a Fat Tree, Butterfly or - ideally - a hypercube topology would be considered a supercomputer. The same PCs in the Cloud would be considered a torrential downpour.)

The problem is ultimately, as Plasmaphysiker says, communication time. From a technical standpoint you can just as easily say "a supercomputer is any computer that can mimic or better a vector processor's overall performance for the same compute power". Ok, maybe not as easily as it's longer to say, but it comes to the same thing.

Re:Skynet is bigger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37962158)

All supercomputers in the top500 are superclusters.
If i recall correctly Fujitsu's EnterpriseSPARC M9000 still holds the record for the most FLOPS from a single-board system, but that's considered mainframe class. There really aren't any supercomputers anymore, in the sense of a single machine.

And communication time isn't really the difference between a cluster and a bigger (super) cluster. You'll find quite a lot of system on the top 500, using generic Gig-E as their interconnect. You'll find some using Gig-E that overpower others using infiniband. It's been reduced to a numbers game. Some push out more FLOPs by throwing more cores at it (Jaguar, RoadRunner, etc) others do it by throwing fewer, much more powerful, and uch more efficient cores at it (Riken, JAXA, EarthSimulator 2), but both types have MASSIVE ammounts of sockets and cores, that's pretty much it. You can cluster the racks in a single cabinet together and you have a cluster, cluster 800 racks together, you get a supercluster, it's all about scale.

Getting boring - add more CPUs ( & now GPUs)! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960218)

Whats so big in this ? Sounds like every now and then someone adds another 10,000 new chips and they have a new world record holding super computer.

Re:Getting boring - add more CPUs ( & now GPUs (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960586)

Computers don't scale linearly. Amdahl's Law. The reason home computers don't go beyond 16 cores is that even getting a 16-way SMP is a horrifically difficult problem. If you built a 32-core machine it would run SLOWER than a 16-core one because of all the overheads (locking on the bus, scheduling, interprocessor communications, stuff like that). You can't just add cores and expect a faster machine. You have to put in an enormous amount of time and effort to engineer the design and you really have to do so almost from scratch each time.

Re:Getting boring - add more CPUs ( & now GPUs (1)

stewartjm (608296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961464)

Relatively speaking 48 cores on a single board has been "affordable" since Magny Cours launched a bit around a year ago. And the new G34 Bulldozers, can give you 64 cores using the same motherboards. Even if you discount the huge 4 socket boards, the 2 socket G34 boards will give you 24-32 cores.

So 16 cores is certainly not some sort of upper bound at the moment. The only thing keeping it out of sub 1k desktop computers is price. And that'll come down in a die shrink or 2. No fundamental new design required.

Almost all of the hardware going into the Top500 clusters these days is standard off the shelf components. So, I'd tend to agree with the OP, it is kind of ho hum to add 10k new cores to an existing cluster, or to build yet another cluster with a nearly identical architecture to 100 others that came before it. It just requires money, and the will to spend it.

Re:Getting boring - add more CPUs ( & now GPUs (1)

Ruie (30480) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961540)

Whats so big in this ? Sounds like every now and then someone adds another 10,000 new chips and they have a new world record holding super computer.

Interconnect. Adding more nodes has a linear cost increase, but connecting them all with low-latency links is difficult. It is easy enough to buy a 48-port switch, but a 1000 port switch with low latency is a completely different story, and if you need 10000 ports you are in fully custom territory - it can easily cost a lot more than all the nodes combined.

Re:Getting boring - add more CPUs ( & now GPUs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961968)

IBM's PowerPC A2; 16 64-bit cores and 64 threads all using less then 80 watts manufactured at 45nm running at 1.4Ghz. IBM's PowerPC has future performance growth at 32nm, 28nm and 22nm. Intel's has already reached there limit 22nm will bring more slow cores; 8 cores each running at 800Mhz, performance increase none, new factor gotta have it!

Re:Getting boring - add more CPUs ( & now GPUs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37962240)

This one's more powerful than the next three on the list combined. the leap is HUGE. they went from 1 pflop, to 2, to 10. What's impressive is that its output is nearly 5 times that of Jaguar, on just a little less than half the cores and about 25% less clock. It's just a shame they haven't gotten it fully optimized yet, JAXA was a lot more efficient on the previous incarnation of the same processor, but maybe that can be attributed to Solaris on Sparc (JAXA) vs Linux on Sparc (RIKEN).

The real test... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960222)

Spock: "Computer. This is a class one priority directive. Compute, to the last digit, the value of Pi."

Re:The real test... (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960246)

Spock: "Computer. This is a class one priority directive. Compute, to the last digit, the value of Pi."

Computer: "The answer is 10, base Pi."

Re:The real test... (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960460)

Shouldn't that be "1, base Pi"?

Re:The real test... (2)

CurryCamel (2265886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960488)

1 base Pi == 1 base 10 == 1 base 2 == 1 base N

Re:The real test... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960510)

Probably not. 2 in base 2: 10. 3 in base 3: 10. 10 in base 10: 10. You get the idea.

Re:The real test... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960504)

Real artificial intelligence - "No. I'm not falling for that one."

More proof that deficits don't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960232)

Japan's very high (currently something like 200%) debt-to-gdp ratio has been sustainable because they invest in innovation. USA, take note!!

What about what really matters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960234)

What does it get on SunSpider?

imagine ... (2)

heitikender (655816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960248)

... a Beowulf cluster of those!

And, I imagine.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960360)

It would probably need it's own power plant, as well.

Obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960276)

Crysis, can it play it?

Re:Obligatory... (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960384)

Screw crysis. Let's load dwarf fortress up on this bitch.

Re:Obligatory... (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962996)

Maybe this system can finally process The Great Adamantine Space Elevator...

Re:Obligatory... (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963062)

Which abuses cave in mechanisms to pump magma to space where it falls down and boils away the oceans. At *pinky to lip* one million frames per second.

Pretty Interesting, But.. (1)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960280)

I wonder how that would compare to the combined computational power of every smartphone, laptop, and desktop computer around the world.

Re:Pretty Interesting, But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37962138)

7 Billion ARM processors is equal to 50 core i7 Intel processors or 3 PowerPC A2.

Re:Pretty Interesting, But.. (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962418)

http://www.xyster.net/blog/?p=40 [xyster.net]
Claims an iphone 3g can do 20Mflops double precision linpack.
Assuming there are about 100M handsets with that level of performance:
2000 Million (10^6), Million(10^6) flops = 2 * 10^15 = 2 petaflops, and that's just the smartphones. The laptops and desktops would both perform better, and have a much higher count.

Does anyone have... (1)

badzilla (50355) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960316)

A car analogy? Or how may libraries of congress / football fields?

Seriously I doubt 10.51 petaflops means anything to anyone except a small coterie of supercomputer nerds.

Re:Does anyone have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960550)

the common cpu you can find in a desktop goes from 20 to 60 GFLOPS.
so there are two orders of magnitude between your desktop and this computer.

Re:Does anyone have... (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962648)

Ugh. Please mod parent down.
To provide a more accurate and specific comparison:
An i7 2600K can get around 130 GFLOPS.
10 Petaflops == 10,000 Teraflops == 10,000,000 GFLOPS
So that is around five orders of magnitude between your desktop and this computer. Not two.

Re:Does anyone have... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960950)

A mid-range GPU pulls about 10 gigaflops. This is a million times that.

Re:Does anyone have... (2)

Ruie (30480) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961564)

A car analogy? Or how may libraries of congress / football fields?

Seriously I doubt 10.51 petaflops means anything to anyone except a small coterie of supercomputer nerds.

That's why I read Slashdot.

Re:Does anyone have... (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962578)

It's enough to accurately simulate the meaningful chemistry of about 1/100% of a human brain, in real time.

Re:Does anyone have... (1)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962764)

as for the car analogy... you can drive a Prius around the Earth 75 times on the amount of electricity it took to produce that result.

Why don't they turn it up to eleven? (1)

VMaN (164134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960392)

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

Riken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960588)

Gotta love Japanese names, they have/come up with so many cool ones.

K machine technology (3, Informative)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960660)

The K supercomputer is build on SPARC technology.

The system is still under construction and is scheduled to enter full service in November 2012 with 864 cabinets. As of the November 2011 TOP500 list, it uses 68,544 2.0GHz 8-core SPARC64 VIIIfx processors packed in 672 cabinets, for a total of 548,352 cores, manufactured by Fujitsu with 45 nm CMOS process technology. Each cabinet contains 96 compute nodes in addition to 6 IO nodes. Each compute node contains a single processor and 16 GB of memory. Its water cooling system minimizes failure rate and power consumption.

The K uses a proprietary six-dimensional torus network interconnect called Tofu, and a Tofu-optimized Message Passing Interface based on the open-source Open MPI library. Users can create application programs adapted to either a one-, two-, or three-dimensional torus network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_computer [wikipedia.org]

IBM has the Sequoia system coming on line in 2012 and it is also targeted at the 20 Petaflop range. It will be significantly more power efficient at 3000 Mflops/watt, three times lower then the K system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Sequoia [wikipedia.org]

Re:K machine technology (1)

RicktheBrick (588466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961076)

With so much power one would think that it could have already discovered fusion, cure to aids, heart disease and cancer. At 10,000 trillion flops per second, that would mean about 864 million trillion flops per day or about 26 billion trillion flops per month or about 312 billion trillion flops in a year.so invent something already!

Re:K machine technology (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961486)

Be patient. Transcomputational problems take time.

Re:K machine technology (1)

Ruie (30480) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961592)

With so much power one would think that it could have already discovered fusion [...]

No, the number of cores needs to increase by another two orders of magnitude before we achieve ignition.

Stupid Computers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961706)

..don't invent things. Rather, it is smart people using them as Fast Slide Rules. We computer people tend to overestimate what we can achieve with our contraptions. The Russians proved that symbolic solutions by human brains could achieve similar things as the numerical solutions here in the west. Too often, computers are just complex heat generators.

Re:K machine technology (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962498)

They've invented nuclear weapons maintenance, isn't that enough for you?

Re:K machine technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961784)

Fujitsu, eh? FM Towns SUPERMARTY.

Re:K machine technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37962232)

IBM's PowerPC A2 16 64-bit cores each core capable of four threads, manufactured at 45nm running 1.4GHz using less then 60 watts. WOW! imagine if we could get a thinkpad with say 4 cores and 16 threads (60 watts / 16 = 3.75 watts) at 3.75 watts now that is performance.

Re:K machine technology (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963800)

No one would buy it because nothing would run on it.

kid's stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960820)

We need some inputs from all the conspicuous by their silence quantum computing nerds.

Gee... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961146)

Do you think it could handle a game of freecell? That takes an awful lot of cpu power...

All that computing power will be put to good use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961560)

...rendering HQ tentacle rape porn.

Real-world uses! (3, Interesting)

GrandCow (229565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961582)

How many bitcoins per hour is that?

Re:Real-world uses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37962096)

At the current difficulty, it's 30 Bitcoins per hour. Not much, ain't it...

Difficult to believe... (2)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961900)

Actual specs [top500.org] : 68500 Sparc64s, each with 8 cores. So every core can put away between 5 and 10 double-precision calculations every single cycle?

Re:Difficult to believe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37962940)

Intel processors are 4 issue and with AVX extensions can perform up to 8 double-precision operations per instruction for a total of 32 double precision calculations per cycle.

Re:Difficult to believe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37963850)

It's called SIMD, Luke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD

Hmm.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37962708)

Obviously, it is so vital for the world to need this and especially Japan with Fukushima and Toyota requiring total recall of prior calculations. And the answer is.. why? Not to mention, the carbon footprint of this SPC is equivalent to a jet liner taking off every second? How can mankind be so stupid? Oh, this computer will calculate the distance to Andromeda and back 43,000,000,000,000,000 times every 15 secs as the earth turns in orbit? Wow. Just wow.

How is it used? (1)

chebucto (992517) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962808)

I've always wondered how supercomputer time is rationed. How much does computer time on these things cost? How is the cost calculated? Is time divided up something like how it's done on a large telescope, where the controlling organization get proposals from scientists, then divvies up the computer's available time according to what's been accepted? Do they multi-task (run more than one scientists' program at one time)? Does the computer run at top power (10pf) at all times, or does the resource usage go up and down? And lastly, how hard is it to write programs to run on these things? Do the scientists do it themselves, and if so, do the people who run the supercomputer audit the code before it runs?

Do the programs that run on supercomputers ever crash the system?

Yeah, it can be unpleasant (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962920)

I get petaflops sometimes when I eat at Super Taco Burrito down on Jackson at Halsted. Man, the mega-super is really tasty but you suffer later.

With Super Taco Burrito and all the gyros places on the corner, that's ground zero for intestinal distress. But something keeps pulling me back there.

Now what were we talking about?

Oh yeah, is it Spring Back and Fall Forward or the other way around? Damn, now I got a taste for one a those mega-super burritos and an order of guac. I think they're open til midnight. Oh boy, it's gonna be one a those days tomorrow...

Jaguar Will Become The Fastest Soon! (1)

Diggester (2492316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963690)

Cray Inc. is working on updating its Jaguar supercomputer and that will enable 20-petaflop peak performance. ;) Therefore, we could soon see Jaguar as the fastest supercomputer in the world
Load More 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...