Intel does it again - 1 trillion operations per second!

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Coottie, Feb 13, 2007.

  1. Coottie

    Coottie BOOMER......SOONER OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    32,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    OKC
  2. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    Thats pretty fast, but to put it in perspective you'd still need 400 of these to top BlueGene (which has something like 100,000 cores).
     
  3. ady

    ady New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    10,959
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    400 nodes is going to require alot less power and real estate than the 65,000 bluegene/L uses though. It will be interesting to see what all the power gets used for, because most articles are talking about having it in the home and that could possibly enable distributed computing projects like [email protected] and [email protected] to make huge advances.
     
  4. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    Of course, not to mention the latency and controller overhead associated with so many nodes, etc etc etc. It is going to be one hell of a chip.
     
  5. mondaynightmike

    mondaynightmike New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    117,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DEFINITELY No *Unlinked* Cock Pics
  6. samm

    samm Next in Line

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2000
    Messages:
    2,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    BlueGene/L is quite small for being as powerful as it is, you could fit the 64 rack system in a small 5000 square foot shed, assuming you have a raised floor and adequate cooling and air handlers :)

    It has 64 racks of 1024 dual processor PowerPC 440 nodes running at 700 MHz. The entire system requires around 3 MW of power I believe:

    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5918025.html
     
  7. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    80 cores @ 1teraflop, = 12.5 Gflop/core.

    A fast Core2Duo is about 24 GFlops, or 12Gflop/core.

    So the cores should be of similar capacity to thoes in the current core2duos.... daaaamn :noes:
     
  8. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh darn. It's not x86 compatible.

    I'll just have to console myself with an Athlon 64x4.
     
  9. Coottie

    Coottie BOOMER......SOONER OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    32,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    OKC
    YET

    I think Intel learned it's lesson about not being x86 compatible with 64 bit chips.
     
  10. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heh...but the Athlon 64x4 is natively x86 compatible already. I wonder if Intel will retool their chip, or just attach a realtime translator like AMD did with their Athlon XP chips, which were really just reverse-engineered and overclocked Motorola G3s with x86 translators attached. (Or at least, that's the story I heard.)
     
  11. Coottie

    Coottie BOOMER......SOONER OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    32,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    OKC
    aww...why dog INtel with all this talk about 4 processors??? Intel already has their quad core processors on the market that are x86 compatible.

    Besides this is about the 80 processor "chips"...not a measely 4 processors.
     
  12. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because it's fun! :fawk:

    Intel is vanilla; it's usually good, sometimes it's better than everything else out there, sometimes it loses out to the competition. For me, I prefer chocolate just because it's different. (and no, the irony that vanilla is an ingredient in chocolate is not lost on me.)

    Which Intel CPU has four cores? Can I buy one? Are you sure you're not thinking of their "Extreme Edition" CPUs with the hyperthreaded dual cores?
     
  13. Coottie

    Coottie BOOMER......SOONER OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    32,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    OKC
    One man's vanilla is another man's chocolate.

    And Intel led the way with CPUs. AMD is the late comer to the party. I have both and I prefer my Intel CPU but I'm not really a die hard of either camp....IMO it's rediculous to argue over which one is better. I do believe that the competition from AMD has pushed Intel to innovate and stay competitive. That's just good for all of us.
    http://www.intel.com/quad-core/index.htm?qc_tl+techresearch_promo&

     
  14. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Touche.

    I still like AMD better though. :big grin:
     

Share This Page