Comments on: SiCortex’s low power, low latency super still on for a summer ship http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/ HPC News Without the Noise for Supercomputing Professionals | insideHPC Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:54:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: John Leidel http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/#comment-42149 John Leidel Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:52:25 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/#comment-42149 Indeed... apologies for the erroneous numbers. Indeed… apologies for the erroneous numbers.

]]> By: John Goodhue http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/#comment-41989 John Goodhue Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:55:25 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/#comment-41989 John Leidel laid out the calculation better than I could, though I think he meant to say that the Intel configuration consumes 3 times the power of the equivalent SiCortex configuration. (54.6kw/18kw = ~3). John Leidel laid out the calculation better than I could, though I think he meant to say that the Intel configuration consumes 3 times the power of the equivalent SiCortex configuration. (54.6kw/18kw = ~3).

]]> By: John Leidel http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/#comment-41869 John Leidel Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:19:51 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/#comment-41869 cstork... lets analyze things just abit. Indeed, I agree with you that an current Intel [call it Clovertown] with the addition of its FBDIMMs will run at 400w. However, when one adds all the board/card/disk peripherals and peg the cpu(s) on the machine, you can easily measure the power utilization at between 600 and 650w. I've done it... So, lets extrapolate this a bit. Given the following : Intel Clovertown, dual socket, quad core 2.0Ghz, 4 ops/clock. 2.0Ghz * 4 * 8cores = 64Gflops peak. Not bad. Lets consider the peak power utilization to be 600w [machine is pegged]. So, we have 64Gflops at 600w. In order to match the SiCortex machine, we would need exactly 91 nodes. So, 91 nodes @ 600w = 54.6kw. Ouch! This is roughly 33% higher than the SiCortex. This general comparison is, of course, ignoring one's target workload, which is often the #1 driver in procurement activities. cstork… lets analyze things just abit. Indeed, I agree with you that an current Intel [call it Clovertown] with the addition of its FBDIMMs will run at 400w. However, when one adds all the board/card/disk peripherals and peg the cpu(s) on the machine, you can easily measure the power utilization at between 600 and 650w. I’ve done it…

So, lets extrapolate this a bit.
Given the following : Intel Clovertown, dual socket, quad core 2.0Ghz, 4 ops/clock.
2.0Ghz * 4 * 8cores = 64Gflops peak. Not bad. Lets consider the peak power utilization to be 600w [machine is pegged].
So, we have 64Gflops at 600w.

In order to match the SiCortex machine, we would need exactly 91 nodes. So, 91 nodes @ 600w = 54.6kw. Ouch!
This is roughly 33% higher than the SiCortex.

This general comparison is, of course, ignoring one’s target workload, which is often the #1 driver in procurement activities.

]]> By: cstork http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/#comment-41249 cstork Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:26:34 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/2007/06/25/sicortexs-low-power-low-latency-super-still-on-for-a-summer-ship/#comment-41249 This doesn't seem so impressive. 5832 Gflops for 18 kilowatts? Machines built on the latest Intel chips can do 100 Gflops for about 400 watts, 60 machines would be 24 kilowatts. This doesn’t seem so impressive. 5832 Gflops for 18 kilowatts?

Machines built on the latest Intel chips can do 100 Gflops for about 400 watts, 60 machines would be 24 kilowatts.

]]>