Yet another nvidia GPU powered super computer

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,562
I love the headline.... Nvidia powered super computer.

Ummm .... 110 volta GPUs doesn't make it Nvidia powered. It gives it a bit of GPU compute.....

I would say 290,304 AMD chips... making for 18,579,456 physical Ryzen cores, and 37,158,912 threads would make it AMD powered. lol

EDIT... ya I responded really quick and shut my brain off a bit. That should read a much more realistic and still impressive 4,536 AMD chips... 290,304 cores 580,608 threads. :)
 
Last edited:

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,536
My point is that nvidia powers most of the supercomputers in the world. It dominates the top 20. AMD is nowhere near that. Much less with GPUs.

EPYC is a step in the right direction though. Now if only AMD could bring GPUs in line...
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,777
My point is that nvidia powers most of the supercomputers in the world. It dominates the top 20. AMD is nowhere near that. Much less with GPUs.

EPYC is a step in the right direction though. Now if only AMD could bring GPUs in line...
If you have a point to make, maybe you should actually make it in your op. None of us are mind readers.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
5,788
My point is that nvidia powers most of the supercomputers in the world. It dominates the top 20. AMD is nowhere near that. Much less with GPUs.

EPYC is a step in the right direction though. Now if only AMD could bring GPUs in line...
Really? You take a this as a chance to state dumb shit like the above? :(
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2002
Messages
2,382
My point is that nvidia powers most of the supercomputers in the world. It dominates the top 20. AMD is nowhere near that. Much less with GPUs.

EPYC is a step in the right direction though. Now if only AMD could bring GPUs in line...
5 out of the top 10 super computers are using tesla/volta for acceleration. Hardly dominating but is significant. They do power the current top two Ill grant ya and AMD is not anywhere in the list.
 

HAL_404

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
764
"Summit consists of 4,608 compute servers, each of which packs some serious processing power. A single server in the Summit array has two IBM Power9 CPUs with 22 processing cores. That’s over 200,000 CPU cores across all of Summit, and they’re paired with more than 10 petabytes of RAM.

Each server in Summit also contains six Nvidia Tesla V100 GPUs, which are data center chips based on the Volta architecture (i.e. you can’t pop one in your PC). That works out to 27,648 individual GPUs powering Summit. These GPUs include dedicated Tensor Core hardware for machine learning as well. According to Nvidia, the GPUs in Summit account for 95 percent of its processing capacity."

No one here mentioned IBM CPU's :(

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...nveil-summit-the-worlds-fastest-supercomputer
 
Last edited:

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,562
The 2 fastest super computers in the world right now are both running Power processors.

The 3rd and 4th fastest super computers in the world run custom build Chinese processors.

I believe my only point is..... super computers do not equate to regular consumer stuff. It really doesn't matter that much if AMD is ever in a top 10 or top 20 fastest super computer. They are not big projects in terms of dollars.... the article the OP points out states this machine in question costs the end user 22 million dollar. Considering Crays margins... their proprietary link tech... all the RAM and NVME storage. The amount of actual $ heading AMD or Nvidias way on this project is nothing. Its probably a few hours of consumer sales at most.

What is needed in a super computer does not translate into what we need for games... or high end desktop stuff. Or even regular high end server stuff. Hardware required to simulate weather, ocean currents, and nuclear explosions in real time doesn't translate into anything anyone else would be doing with a CPU of any kind. IBM dominates cause they specifically designed their chips to work in large clusters form the ground up... they don't care about the laptop and phone market. Same goes for the 2 Chinese machines that have been in the top 4 for a few years now... they are designed specifically to scale in large clusters.

Volta ends up in these machines for one simple reason... AI and Simulations that use AI right now all the researchers use cuda. AMD frankly doesn't have the resources to pour into opencl to really make it a viable alternative in a real way. However Cuda will die. It will. The same way other hardware specific APIs have. There is a reason game developers stopped supporting Glide before 3DFX went down. At some point Intel is going to ship their GPU compute units, either this year or the next... and when they do they are going to pour an unholy amount of money into OpenCL, and with in a few years Nvidia will be forced to beef up their OpenCL drivers in the same way 3DFX was forced to embrace opengl and directx.
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
I love the headline.... Nvidia powered super computer.

Ummm .... 110 volta GPUs doesn't make it Nvidia powered. It gives it a bit of GPU compute.....

I would say 290,304 AMD chips... making for 18,579,456 physical Ryzen cores, and 37,158,912 threads would make it AMD powered. lol
It's 290k cores not 290k CPUs.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,212
It's 290k cores not 290k CPUs.
It is still at least 4536 EPYC CPUs (up to twice as many if it's all 32C), though I am curious as to the topology of this setup. Even if we go 64C 2P systems, that is still 2268 nodes, which means a vast majority aren't hosting GV100s at all.
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
It is still at least 4536 EPYC CPUs (up to twice as many if it's all 32C), though I am curious as to the topology of this setup. Even if we go 64C 2P systems, that is still 2268 nodes, which means a vast majority aren't hosting GV100s at all.
I was just pointing out that it's no where near almost 300k CPUs. 4536 CPUs is a LOT less than 290k.

Though, I still believe this to be an "AMD" Supercomputer and not a Nvidia Supercomputer by any means.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,562
When AMD gets a sizeable market share in the supercomputer market with GPUs, I'll gladly post about it. If that ever happens...

Happy?
The money in super computers isn't in GPU clusters. The money in super computers... is honestly mostly in the link tech. Which is what keeps Cray and IBM as the titans in super computing. Fujitsu makes some money in super computers in Japan... and China does their own thing I guess. Point is the GPUs are sort of small potatoes in that market. A cluster of 110 voltas is impressive don't get me wrong.... but man with this specific machine all they are going to do is run some AI that is going to decide which data the real CPUs should actually spend the bulk of their time on. The real CPUs being the almost 4-5 thousand AMD Epyc 7002s in this thing.

I guess its just funny that your post that is supposed to show how fantastic Nvidia is and how crap AMD is.... is in reality one of the first major super computer design wins for AMD in some time. All the big machines have been going either IBM power 9 or Intel almost exclusively for a couple years now. Most SC designers have either went money is no object and went power9 with the budget systems going some form of Intel xeon. This is one of the first big US gov projects where Cray is using AMD. This is one of 3 machines they have been contracted... and sure they all have a handful of Volta GPUs, but that isn't what makes them super. ;)
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,562
It's 290k cores not 290k CPUs.
Fair... that is what you get for replying to fast sometimes. lol

So about 4500 AMD 7002s.... and 110 Nvidia Voltas. I guess it really is NV powered. ;)
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
Fair... that is what you get for replying to fast sometimes. lol

So about 4500 AMD 7002s.... and 110 Nvidia Voltas. I guess it really is NV powered. ;)
No, it's definitely an AMD supercomputer with ~4500 CPUs in the cluster. Never said otherwise.

It it had 290k CPUs in the cluster then it would be THE supercomputer of the world. As the Summit supercomputer (currently #1) houses around 9k 22-core CPUs and around 27k V100s. It would crush that supercomputer. It would have more physical CPUs than Summit has physical cores.

However, 290k CPUs would need a LOT more RAM than what Cray's supercomputer is going to have. A LOT MORE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,562
No, it's definitely an AMD supercomputer with ~4500 CPUs in the cluster. Never said otherwise.

It it had 290k CPUs in the cluster then it would be THE supercomputer of the world. As the Summit supercomputer (currently #1) houses around 9k 22-core CPUs and around 27k V100s. It would crush that supercomputer. It would have more physical CPUs than Summit has physical cores.

However, 290k CPUs would need a LOT more RAM than what Cray's supercomputer is going to have. A LOT MORE.
Ya I wasn't thinking when I replied. lol
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
Ya I wasn't thinking when I replied. lol
If my Math is right and assuming it is 290k CPUs @ 32 cores each... the Crays new supercomputer would have well over 200 petaFLOPS and the Summit was benchmarked at 146 petaFLOPS but 200 is possible on it. 64 core CPUs and that number is north of 400 petaFLOPS. That's also assuming 112 V100s is 2.8 petaFLOPS from the 12.8 petaFLOPS leaving the CPUs at 10 petaFLOPS.
 

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,681
Would it be considered a supercomputer without the Epycs? Without the Voltas?
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
Would it be considered a supercomputer without the Epycs? Without the Voltas?
Without the Volts it would probably be around 10 petaFLOPS I believe. That would keep it (currently, if it was operational today) in the top 25 still.

The voltas only, if they are capable of 2.8 petaFLOPS (I believe this number is probably closer to 1.5 anyway) then they'd barely make the Top100. If 1.5, they'd not be in the top 100.

https://www.top500.org/list/2019/11/
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,562
If my Math is right and assuming it is 290k CPUs @ 32 cores each... the Crays new supercomputer would have well over 200 petaFLOPS and the Summit was benchmarked at 146 petaFLOPS but 200 is possible on it. 64 core CPUs and that number is north of 400 petaFLOPS. That's also assuming 112 V100s is 2.8 petaFLOPS from the 12.8 petaFLOPS leaving the CPUs at 10 petaFLOPS.
That would be insane. They would need to build it its own power plant if it had 290k CPUs... as it is at 4.5k CPUs I wouldn't want to see the electric bill. :)

Summit has the advantage of running power 9 clusters. Believe its 2 22 core power 9s per cluster. Main advantage on those is how power efficient it is.

Think a lot of AMD not getting big super computer wins with Ryzen... has more to do with power draw then anything else. The next wave of super computing seems to be power efficiency... with improvements in Link tech and the performance of lower power cores. Fujitsu should be installing their new ARM based A64FX chips into Japans Fugaku super computer this year with it spinning up early next year. Should be the first exascale ARM super computer in real world use.... Fujitsu has spun up a 2 petaflop test bed prototype of fugaku in their offices that is delivering 16.9 GFlops/Watt which is pretty insane. Put them in #1 on the green 500 list of most power efficient super computers. Going to be interesting to see what spot it lands in on the overall top 500 next year. My guess is it lands into a solid 2nd place, while probably burning half the power.

The best Power9 system AiMOS produces 15.8 GFlops/Watt ... Summit is at 14.7 GFlops/Watt. The Sugon super computer with AMD 7501 CPUs is only producing 6.3 GFlops/Watt... which puts it pretty much on par with the Chinese Sunway machine which still the 3nd fastest machine in the world but its pure brute force with tons of clusters and probably its own power generating station.

AMD has had a few ROME super computers hit the charts.... but really they are all power hogs. Which makes the idea of anyone building one big enough to hit the top of the charts seem unrealistic. So far the best Rome based machine made by Atos is only pushing 5.781 GFlops/Watt.
https://www.smalltechnews.com/archives/18699It will be interesting to see where these Cray machines shake out in terms of efficiency. Obviously the power performance has a lot of other factors beyond just pure CPU draw. I am sure Cray is going to get a lot more power efficiency out of the platform.... but I can't imagine they will triple it either to reach power 9 levels.
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
That would be insane. They would need to build it its own power plant if it had 290k CPUs... as it is at 4.5k CPUs I wouldn't want to see the electric bill. :)
Hey now! You're the one who said it had 290k CPUs. :LOL: :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Top