U.S. Air Force Creates Powerful Supercomputer Out Of PS3s

Jehuty said:
Consoles don't depreciate the same way that off the shelf computer parts do, dude. You're thinking about this in terms of graphical power -- the key here is the cell processor, not the RSX.
Click to expand...

dude, have you ever heard of cuda? apparently not bro
 
Damnit, no edit button.

Another thing to note too is that the reason Toshiba and IBM teamed up with Sony to make the Cell processor was to pave the way for supercomputing. They didn't get involved just for the sake of making a processor specifically for a console.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)
 
And why does it matter if consoles don't depreciate in value the same way? The hardware is 4 years old. Video Cards have been rapidly advancing in the past 4 years bro
 
jonny900 said:
dude, have you ever heard of cuda? apparently not bro
Click to expand...

GPUs also cost a lot more, are larger, draw more power, and require the support of outside CPU, memory and PSU systems. Plus, Cell and traditional CPU architectures are far more efficient than GPUs (even Fermi) at floating point calculations (decimals), which are needed for precision.
 
Mad Cat said:
GPUs also cost a lot more, are larger, draw more power, and require the support of outside CPU, memory and PSU systems. Plus, Cell and traditional CPU architectures are far more efficient than GPUs (even Fermi) at floating point calculations (decimals), which are needed for precision.
Click to expand...

No... you are flat our wrong. An 8800 gtx (128 cuda cores) card beat the ps3 in computing power.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=58846

A gtx 460 has 336 cuda cores and can be bought for less than $150. A complete system with said gtx 460 would cost about twice as much as a ps3 but offer about 3 times the performance.
 
You have to include the cost of electricity, cost of maintenance, cost of space there.

When you take all that into account, it makes your "3 times the performance" justification kind of moot.
 
jonny900 said:
No... you are flat our wrong. An 8800 gtx (128 cuda cores) card beat the ps3 in computing power.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=58846

A gtx 460 has 336 cuda cores and can be bought for less than $150. A complete system with said gtx 460 would cost about twice as much as a ps3 but offer about 3 times the performance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't post my sources right now, but I looked at pricing out a GTX480 supercomputer this summer. They are VERY expensive... keep in mind that you are not building a desktop, and the server racks cost a lot. Plus, we were building for a minimum of 48GB of RAM per GPU or processor. I think it was something like $2000-2500 per pair of GPUs.

I'll see if I can find more in the morning.
 
jonny900 said:
No... you are flat our wrong. An 8800 gtx (128 cuda cores) card beat the ps3 in computing power.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=58846

A gtx 460 has 336 cuda cores and can be bought for less than $150. A complete system with said gtx 460 would cost about twice as much as a ps3 but offer about 3 times the performance.
Click to expand...

But take into consideration the power and space consumption of an actual machine in comparison with that of the ps3.
 
Jehuty said:
You have to include the cost of electricity, cost of maintenance, cost of space there.

When you take all that into account, it makes your "3 times the performance" justification kind of moot.
Click to expand...

Place 3 gtx 460s in a 3-way SLI motherboard and your "cost of electricity and space" justification becomes extremely moot
 
jonny900 said:
Place 3 gtx 460s in a 3-way SLI motherboard and your "cost of electricity and space" justification becomes extremely moot
Click to expand...

Extremely moot, because one GTX 460 at load definitely doesn't draw as much power as a PS3
 
jonny900 said:
No... you are flat our wrong. An 8800 gtx (128 cuda cores) card beat the ps3 in computing power.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=58846

A gtx 460 has 336 cuda cores and can be bought for less than $150. A complete system with said gtx 460 would cost about twice as much as a ps3 but offer about 3 times the performance.
Click to expand...

I doubt they randomly just said lets build a supercomuter out of PS3s. They do consider all options and even more so they are on a budget due to cuts. It isnt just as simple as you state.
 
jonny900 said:
Do any of you realize that the ps3 is over 4 years old and therefore obsolete? A fermi based tesla card would destroy the ps3 is supercomputing tasks. The air force is just doing this for publicity imo
Click to expand...

Your lack of knowledge is amazing.
 
Strange choice. I fail to see how the 5 year old technology in the PS3 could be more efficient at supercomputing than modern GPUs. Even a run of the mill quad core CPU would probably give the PS3's Cell a run for its money.
 
robble said:
[re: toy computer] same here.. The miltary has done this mahy times before
The processor in the PS3 is a helluva lot better than you give it credit for.
Click to expand...

While the PS3 may not be a complete toy, nobody has mentioned anything about ECC*. A "supercomputer" without ECC is a joke, see VT's apple-based beowulf.

I strongly suspect that hardware cost had nothing to do with the decision to use a PS3. If they have done this "many times before" then the point is using the software used before. The only way that COTS components are going to be 10 times as expensive is if they are comparing IBM cell boards (don't ask about the price) or have completely different purchasing rules with PS3s and "server type" computer gear (PS3s may have some sort of exemption as a recreational device).

Finally, the military almost has to have a special deal (so much for losing money, DoD tends to pay 10x retail prices) to get OS loadable PS3s. Even so, I'm sure there are hacked PS3s floating around the used market near air force bases just waiting to report back to home when plugged into such a network. Go back to DoD rules and there goes the hardware cost advantage.
 
500 teraflops / 1760 PS3s = 284 gigaflops per PS3

One Fermi GPU is capable of about 1500 gigaflops

The article also mentions "168 separate graphics processors", I wonder what those are.
 
infect0 said:
The only irony I see is ignorance.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The government has just awarded the contract to provide U.S. military units with "processors". The contract goes to:

Geoffrey_Giraffe_Inflatable.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top