Top 500 Supercomputers

[Random Variable]

# of processors/ year of installation/ Max LINPACK performance (in gigaflops)/ theoretical peak LINPACK performance

1 DOE/NNSA/LLNL
United States BlueGene/L - eServer Blue Gene Solution
IBM 131072 2005 280600 367000

2 IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
United States BGW - eServer Blue Gene Solution
IBM 40960 2005 91290 114688

3 DOE/NNSA/LLNL
United States ASCI Purple - eServer pSeries p5 575 1.9 GHz
IBM 10240 2005 63390 77824

4 NASA/Ames Research Center/NAS
United States Columbia - SGI Altix 1.5 GHz, Voltaire Infiniband
SGI 10160 2004 51870 60960

5 Sandia National Laboratories
United States Thunderbird - PowerEdge 1850, 3.6 GHz, Infiniband
Dell 8000 2005 38270 64512

6 Sandia National Laboratories
United States Red Storm Cray XT3, 2.0 GHz
Cray Inc. 10880 2005 36190 43520

7 The Earth Simulator Center
Japan Earth-Simulator
NEC 5120 2002 35860 40960

8 Barcelona Supercomputer Center
Spain MareNostrum - JS20 Cluster, PPC 970, 2.2 GHz, Myrinet
IBM 4800 2005 27910 42144

9 ASTRON/University Groningen
Netherlands eServer Blue Gene Solution
IBM 12288 2005 27450 34406.4

10 Oak Ridge National Laboratory
United States Cray XT3, 2.4 GHz
Cray Inc. 5200 2005 20527 24960

http://top500.org/lists/2005/11/basic#

 

[l Xes l]

would they beat 1000000000 raptors in raid 0?!

 

[rafal]

I wish my computer had 131072 processors

 

[ribbon13]

Numbers 41 and 42 are my favorites.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: krnxpride83
would they beat 1000000000 raptors in raid 0?!

Probably, since a bunch of harddrives can't do anything.

 

[ribbon13]

Yeah, and if you want to pwn the raptors, you go here

 

[Firsttime]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Numbers 41 and 42 are my favorites.

we an opteron fan?

 

[l Xes l]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Yeah, and if you want to pwn the raptors, you go here

hmmm.. im thinking about raid'ing them after the lottery...

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: Firsttime
we an opteron fan?

And why the hell not? Here are some of the finer examples of why my love follows the winner.

AMD: 1 / Intel: 0
AMD: 2 / Intel: 0
AMD: 3 / Intel: 0

I'm not loyal to AMD per se. If Intel release dual-core 65nm chips based on the Pentium M and integrates a DDR2 controller, I might not be so rabid about Opterons. But this hasn't happened yet.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Firsttime
we an opteron fan?

And why the hell not? Here are some of the finer examples of why my love follows the winner.

AMD: 1 / Intel: 0
AMD: 2 / Intel: 0
AMD: 3 / Intel: 0

I'm not loyal to AMD per se. If Intel release dual-core 65nm chips based on the Pentium M and integrates a DDR2 controller, I might not be so rabid about Opterons. But this hasn't happened yet.

Cray XT3 systems use Opterons.

 

[zephyrprime]

Why's my computer not up there?

 

[Firsttime]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Firsttime
we an opteron fan?

And why the hell not? Here are some of the finer examples of why my love follows the winner.

AMD: 1 / Intel: 0
AMD: 2 / Intel: 0
AMD: 3 / Intel: 0

I'm not loyal to AMD per se. If Intel release dual-core 65nm chips based on the Pentium M and integrates a DDR2 controller, I might not be so rabid about Opterons. But this hasn't happened yet.

no offence meant, I can only dream about being able to afford an Opteron

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Firsttime

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Firsttime
we an opteron fan?

And why the hell not? Here are some of the finer examples of why my love follows the winner.

AMD: 1 / Intel: 0
AMD: 2 / Intel: 0
AMD: 3 / Intel: 0

I'm not loyal to AMD per se. If Intel release dual-core 65nm chips based on the Pentium M and integrates a DDR2 controller, I might not be so rabid about Opterons. But this hasn't happened yet.

no offence meant, I can only dream about being able to afford an Opteron

They're not too much for a good one

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=40&threadid=1727408&enterthread=y

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Firsttime

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Numbers 41 and 42 are my favorites.

we an opteron fan?

Aren't all the Cray's powered by Opterons?

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Firsttime

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Numbers 41 and 42 are my favorites.

we an opteron fan?

Aren't all the Cray's powered by Opterons?

Not the X1.

 

[Firsttime]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Firsttime

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Firsttime
we an opteron fan?

And why the hell not? Here are some of the finer examples of why my love follows the winner.

AMD: 1 / Intel: 0
AMD: 2 / Intel: 0
AMD: 3 / Intel: 0

I'm not loyal to AMD per se. If Intel release dual-core 65nm chips based on the Pentium M and integrates a DDR2 controller, I might not be so rabid about Opterons. But this hasn't happened yet.

no offence meant, I can only dream about being able to afford an Opteron

They're not too much for a good one

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=40&threadid=1727408&enterthread=y

Well my computer was built off my allowence, so using my math skills, It would take me around 10 months to get one. But for the working public they are now a viable option.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Firsttime

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Firsttime

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Firsttime
we an opteron fan?

And why the hell not? Here are some of the finer examples of why my love follows the winner.

AMD: 1 / Intel: 0
AMD: 2 / Intel: 0
AMD: 3 / Intel: 0

I'm not loyal to AMD per se. If Intel release dual-core 65nm chips based on the Pentium M and integrates a DDR2 controller, I might not be so rabid about Opterons. But this hasn't happened yet.

no offence meant, I can only dream about being able to afford an Opteron

They're not too much for a good one

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=40&threadid=1727408&enterthread=y

Well my computer was built off my allowence, so using my math skills, It would take me around 10 months to get one. But for the working public they are now a viable option.

Ok cool. I didn't know your budget was so limited. I assumed you thought they were like $1000 or something vs comparable to midrange X2 and A64 processors.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: Firsttime

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Firsttime

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Firsttime
we an opteron fan?

And why the hell not? Here are some of the finer examples of why my love follows the winner.

AMD: 1 / Intel: 0
AMD: 2 / Intel: 0
AMD: 3 / Intel: 0

I'm not loyal to AMD per se. If Intel release dual-core 65nm chips based on the Pentium M and integrates a DDR2 controller, I might not be so rabid about Opterons. But this hasn't happened yet.

no offence meant, I can only dream about being able to afford an Opteron

They're not too much for a good one

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=40&threadid=1727408&enterthread=y

Well my computer was built off my allowence, so using my math skills, It would take me around 10 months to get one. But for the working public they are now a viable option.

Explane to your parents that your math skills would improve if they let you build a better computer. And tell your dad you'll be able to help him out with his taxes.

 

[klah]

Itanic Sinks

The Itanium chip family, which Intel has relegated to high-end servers, has rapidly declined on the Top500 Supercomputer list. In November 2004 the list had 84 computers with Itanium 2 processors. In June 2005, the number shrunk to 79.

Now only 46 computers contain Itanium 2 chips, according to the latest list, released Monday.

Meanwhile, the number of supercomputers using Advanced Micro Devices' Opteron chips has increased. A total of 55 Opteron-based computers made the list, up from 25 in June. (Opterons were found in just 29 computers on the November 2004 list.)
...
Gordon Haff, an analyst at the Illuminata research firm. "When there so many questions raised around Itanium, there is more of a tendency to take a glass-is-half-empty point of view."

"With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, there would not be an Itanium today," Haff said.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: klah
Itanic Sinks

The Itanium chip family, which Intel has relegated to high-end servers, has rapidly declined on the Top500 Supercomputer list. In November 2004 the list had 84 computers with Itanium 2 processors. In June 2005, the number shrunk to 79.

Now only 46 computers contain Itanium 2 chips, according to the latest list, released Monday.

Meanwhile, the number of supercomputers using Advanced Micro Devices' Opteron chips has increased. A total of 55 Opteron-based computers made the list, up from 25 in June. (Opterons were found in just 29 computers on the November 2004 list.)
...
Gordon Haff, an analyst at the Illuminata research firm. "When there so many questions raised around Itanium, there is more of a tendency to take a glass-is-half-empty point of view."

"With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, there would not be an Itanium today," Haff said.

I'm willing to bet that a significant part of that drop in usage is financial based. Itanium was a fairly big jump in processor architecture vs. the handholding backwards compatibility aimed x64 stuff. As a jump, many people didn't have the ability to completely change over, and less people buying it meant less ability to make up for the development costs of the chip. It's not that the architecture itself is bad, it's just that it was too much of a jump too soon. It's probably a fine chip for supercomputer usage, where some sort of extensive well running backwards compatibility with older 32bit apps (Itanium had it, but it was damn slow) is not a big issue. But price IS an issue with supercomputers, and I'm sure the price of Itanium simply was too much to swallow for some (as opposed to Opteron, which is fairly cheap due to development costs being absorbed by sales to the consumer/basic workstation market, especially with A64).

Or I may simply be way off and working on an antiquated knowledge of Itanium (personally they should have stuck with calling it Merced - sweet name!).

 

[dexvx]

No, actually a huge part of why Itanium is not on the list is because the core has been stagnant. It is still based off a core in 2002, the McKinley processor. The later revisions were just a minor clock speed bump (+500 Mhz) and some cache (+3 MB L3). It is fairly remarkable, like some Alphas that they even remain on the list.

What the article fails to mention is that more of them are in top seated positions, and the Mencito Itanium, which has been delayed for more than a year will soon make its mark next quarter.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: dexvx
No, actually a huge part of why Itanium is not on the list is because the core has been stagnant. It is still based off a core in 2002, the McKinley processor. The later revisions were just a minor clock speed bump (+500 Mhz) and some cache (+3 MB L3). It is fairly remarkable, like some Alphas that they even remain on the list.

What the article fails to mention is that more of them are in top seated positions, and the Mencito Itanium, which has been delayed for more than a year will soon make its mark next quarter.

Is price still an issue though? If the core has remained somewhat stagnant (although I wouldn't call a 500 MHz bump and lvl 3 cache small additions to an already 'low' clock speed chip), has that had a significant impact on price/performance as newer chips have come out? Or has Intel been significantly lowering the price on those chips?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: dexvx
No, actually a huge part of why Itanium is not on the list is because the core has been stagnant. It is still based off a core in 2002, the McKinley processor. The later revisions were just a minor clock speed bump (+500 Mhz) and some cache (+3 MB L3). It is fairly remarkable, like some Alphas that they even remain on the list.

What the article fails to mention is that more of them are in top seated positions, and the Mencito Itanium, which has been delayed for more than a year will soon make its mark next quarter.

Is price still an issue though? If the core has remained somewhat stagnant (although I wouldn't call a 500 MHz bump and lvl 3 cache small additions to an already 'low' clock speed chip), has that had a significant impact on price/performance as newer chips have come out? Or has Intel been significantly lowering the price on those chips?

In 2002, the I2 was at 1Ghz/6MB L3. 3 years later (which is 2 cycles of Moore's Law in computer terms), its at 1.5Ghz/9MB L3. I'd call that pretty stagnant. Mainly due to the fact that the touted Mencito has been delayed repeatedly.

Chips arent that expensive... Back in 2004, I saw something around the neighborhood of $2000 (1K quantity) for a 6MB chip / 1.4ghz. Thats less than some Xeon MP's. The problem is the motherboard is insanely expensive.

Check on eBay, I2 1.5Ghz/6MB goes for like $200 each. Problem is the PSU and mainboard.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: dexvx
No, actually a huge part of why Itanium is not on the list is because the core has been stagnant. It is still based off a core in 2002, the McKinley processor. The later revisions were just a minor clock speed bump (+500 Mhz) and some cache (+3 MB L3). It is fairly remarkable, like some Alphas that they even remain on the list.

What the article fails to mention is that more of them are in top seated positions, and the Mencito Itanium, which has been delayed for more than a year will soon make its mark next quarter.

Is price still an issue though? If the core has remained somewhat stagnant (although I wouldn't call a 500 MHz bump and lvl 3 cache small additions to an already 'low' clock speed chip), has that had a significant impact on price/performance as newer chips have come out? Or has Intel been significantly lowering the price on those chips?

In 2002, the I2 was at 1Ghz/6MB L3. 3 years later (which is 2 cycles of Moore's Law in computer terms), its at 1.5Ghz/9MB L3. I'd call that pretty stagnant. Mainly due to the fact that the touted Mencito has been delayed repeatedly.

Chips arent that expensive... Back in 2004, I saw something around the neighborhood of $2000 (1K quantity) for a 6MB chip / 1.4ghz. Thats less than some Xeon MP's. The problem is the motherboard is insanely expensive.

Check on eBay, I2 1.5Ghz/6MB goes for like $200 each. Problem is the PSU and mainboard.

Interesting info! I'd still say that the price of the chips (ebay is a non-factor when purchasing a supercomputer) sounds high compared to something like an opteron. But if the surrounding infrastructure is very expensive, I can see how it's market share is receeding (especially if some of that mobo/psu cost trickles into the supercomputer cost in some ways-aren't some of these supercomputers sort of assembled off of fairly off the shelf type components?).

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: rafal
I wish my computer had 131072 processors

You know, in all honesty, even if mine did have all that power, I'd probably still just surf the net