- Feb 29, 2004
I don't know what you mean by saying 'poorly running shuttles'. NASA has done a damn good job in my opinion.question fear said:probably avoiding their hardware being exposed to missing/out of commission rovers and poorly running shuttles?
Attack of the eco-weenies, the freon in the spray-on insulating foam had to be removed from the mix to make all the eco-weenies happy.verces said:5. Find out what really happened to the Columbia.
Just a few thoughts.
Apple don't make large-scale multiprocessing systems and SGI do. Each of these systems has 512 CPUs, and the most you can get in a Mac is 2.ACED said:42.7 teraflops using 10,240 Intel Itanium 2 processors...where was Steve and IBM?
But it's not really the price per processor that's important, it's the cost per teraflop (to simplify it somewhat). And in that equation Apple still comes out ahead. OK so they have 20 of these 512-proc Itanium boxes at $1 million each. That's $20 million and I'm going to add 25% onto that for infrastructure, cooling, communication fabric, etc. I think that's extremely generous, it's probably a lot more than that, but let's go with it (remember you're housing and cooling 5x as many processors, which each probably generate considerably more heat than a G5 chip does). So that's $25 million divided by 42.7 Tflops = $585,000/Tflop for Itanium cluster. Now the Apple cluster cost a total of $5.2 million initially, plus $600,000 for the Xserve upgrade and now scores 12.25 Tflops. 5,800,000 divided by 12.25 Tflops = $473,000/Tflop for G5 cluster.iMeowbot said:The price on those Altix machines is pretty impressive, really. A loaded 512-CPU system sells for a little over $1 million; the NASA system is a cluster of 20 of those.
256 Xserve cluster nodes (for 512 CPUs) would go for $768 thousand, plus high-speed networking hardware, so you're roughly in the same price range as the SGI machine
If it scales evenly, when they get all the CPUs online they get 53.4 TFlops!!!Columbia's record results were achieved running the LINPACK benchmark on 8,192 of the NASA supercomputer's 10,240 processors.
Right... and at that point it's a little cheaper than the Apple equivalent, and still should perform far better on problems involving intermediate results that don't parallelize well.Mr. Anderson said:If it scales evenly, when they get all the CPUs online they get 53.4 TFlops!!!
One of the stated purposes is spacecraft design. Hopefully they'll get the chance to do something better than sink more and more into extending the life of the STS program.Now, what are they going to do with it
I think you need to qualify your claim, these are Itanium 2 chips. Not P4 or Xeons. 2rc, The Itanium has a much lower clock than both the p4 and the g5. But... the Itanium is the Alpha reincarnated. The Itanium is fast, but you must be using intels complier. The Itanium (and the Alpha btw) come from a family of high performance cpus that require the complier to perform alot of "optimizations". Things like instruction scheduling, branch prediction ect. are handed to the complier. Therefore the cpu can spend more space on pipelines, and cache. The xeon, and g5 do not have anything like this. They are "consumer" chips, and most people(developers) can not afford the $10k+ license for a compiler.agreenster said:Seriously guys, what did you expect? Intel chips are STILL STILL STILL faster than ANY G5!
Sure, G5's are fast (I own one) but Intel is faster. Maybe not for long, but yeah, Intel makes faster chips, both clockspeed and actual performance.
Your link is from a forum, so I have provided NASA's official site which provides additional info.ACED said:42.7 teraflops using 10,240 Intel Itanium 2 processors...where was Steve and IBM?
Sure!csubear said:I think you need to qualify your claim
The first generation Itanium chips were indeed pigs, but the Itanium 2 is in the same ballpark as the G5 (62W is the worst case for I2, typical less).csubear said:Also. from what i recall (correct me if i am wrong), The itanium is very hot and power hungry