[Beowulf] China Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S.
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
"C. Bergström" cbergstrom at pathscale.comFri Oct 29 08:13:34 PDT 2010
- Previous message: [Beowulf] China Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S.
- Next message: [Beowulf] China Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bill Rankin wrote: > Douglas: > > >>> [...] >>> What this machine does do is validate to some extent the continued >>> >> use and development of GPUs in an HPC/cluster setting. >> >>> [...] >>> >> Nvidia claims Tianhe-1A's 4.04 megawatts of CUDA GPUs and Xeon CPUs is >> three times more power efficient than CPUs alone. The Nvidia press >> release is at http://bit.ly/d9VNtY >> > > Numbers game. Lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. :-) > > I image if they had quartered the number of CPU cores and doubled the number of GPUs per node, they could have gotten even larger HPL numbers without significantly increasing their power footprint. But they didn't. Why? Perhaps because even though it would have been "more powerful" on paper, it probably would not run real applications any faster. > Define "real" applications, but to give my guess at your question "But they didn't. Why?" One word - cost
- Previous message: [Beowulf] China Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S.
- Next message: [Beowulf] China Wrests Supercomputer Title From U.S.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
