Calvin College duo creates cheap, portable supercomputer

Just months after scientists were able to run a quantum computer simulation on an everyday PC, we're now hearing that a Calvin College student / professor tandem have created an inexpensive, portable supercomputer for crunching massive chunks of data on the go (and on the cheap). Dubbed Microwulf, the wee beast is hailed as a "machine that is among the smallest and least expensive supercomputers on the planet," and when not being checked as baggage on a flight, can reportedly process 26.25 gigaflops of data per second. The system itself touts "four dual-core motherboards connected by an eight-port gigabit Ethernet switch," and when initially constructed, it cost just $2,470 to build. Talk about a solid price-to-performance ratio.

[Via Slashdot]

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:36AM]

And a Monty Python poster on the wall to boot! (pardon the pun.)

Awesome work, congrats!

[Joaquim @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:49AM]

Gigaflops of data per second? Is that a joke? FLOPS stands for "floating point operations per second". "Floating point operations per second of data per second" is nonsense. Someone remind me, why am I reading Engadget?

[shamrock593 @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:59AM]

Big woop, they made a typo, get over it...

I love you Engadget. =)

[Joaquim @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:02AM]

Oh, I see. Engadget is for people who refer to glaring factual errors as "typos". Thank you for the clarification.

[McGinley @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:12AM]

I dont know,why are you reading engadget?You obviously hold it and its editors in contempt...this doesnt make sense!You are an enigma!

Email me when you make a better tech site...seriously!

And for the record...It wasn't factual error...just thought I'd point that out...

[nojok3 @ Sep 2nd 2007 12:05PM]

You can't expect them to know everything. People call NICs "NIC cards" all the time even though the acronym is 'network interface card.' Its redundant but I'm sure theres a lot of people that will skip right over it. No need to blast Engadget though.

[ark_v2 @ Sep 2nd 2007 12:19PM]

I don't know about you, but I don't read engadget because of the editor's technical knowledge or their biased opinions, but because they get the news really fast :)

[joey @ Sep 2nd 2007 12:22PM]

As a measure of computer speed, a gigaflop is a billion floating-point operations per second, you fucking wanabe nerd dufus!

[Joaquim @ Sep 2nd 2007 1:16PM]

nojok3: I'm more irritated by Engadget writing "gigaflops of data", as if gigaflops is a unit measuring data. That's not simple redundancy, it's just wrong.
ark_v2: A valid reason indeed. :)
joey: Sorry, there is no such thing as "gigaflop", if you want to be technically correct. It's always "gigaflops", with the S at the end standing for "second", not plural. In addition, you seem to have missed that I purposely left out "giga" in my definition.

[AndrewNeo @ Sep 2nd 2007 1:36PM]

Shuddap and go use your ATM machine, and your all-terrain ATV vehicle.

[Wwhat @ Sep 2nd 2007 2:03PM]

Uhm, yes flops are floating operations, but what do you do those operation on? data perhaps? as in numbers.
And so it actually does make sense, to do the calculation per sec you need to feed it data and it needs to store the results back, of the data, so it does the flops on data.

Sure you can make a loop in the CPU cache and just calculate the same thing over and over again but that's not very scientifically useful you know, unless you wish to study the effects of human insanity and global warming perhaps :)

[turb0d00d @ Sep 2nd 2007 2:46PM]

Hey Joaquim,
Ever considered that the average Engadget reader might not understand the acronym? Do you act like this when someone says "ATM machine"? It REALLY isn't a big deal. This is not "Grammar and Terminology Correct Gadget News For The Obsessive," this is Engadget. I actually wonder why you read it, too! Why don't you do yourself and I a favor and just quit, so then I won't come across mindless drivel like you just posted? Anyways, about the computer, good for him! I know there are faster/more powerful supers out there, but $2470 is a steal for something with that ability. And he's in school, too!

[Luigi193 @ Sep 2nd 2007 4:13PM]

OMG WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Robert Johnston @ Sep 2nd 2007 6:29PM]

Of course GigaFlops per second works.

Flops could be:

Fl(oating-Point) O(perations) P(er) S(econd), OR
Fl(oating-Point) Op(eration)s

Alternatively, this machine _could_ get progressively faster over time (Like Acceleration, which is measured in Meters per second per second)

[JeffDM @ Sep 2nd 2007 11:19PM]

I've seen NIC mean Network Interface Controller too, so NIC card wouldn't necessarily be redundant.

[rich @ Sep 3rd 2007 2:12AM]

Joaquim, what is your PIN number ????

ooops, just tell me your PIN.

Thanks

[B166Er @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:52AM]

Yeah great work, let's see $2500 to build, say $5k to sell. Perfect. Now if we can shoehorn quad-core to the mobos, what kind of performance could we find?

[NovaLand @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:32AM]

I really don't see why he paied so much for that system. if he was interest in bang for the bucks, he should buy his stuff from somewhere cheaper.

In Sweden where I live, I'd get the same memory configuration for $450 inclusive VAT.. and that's 25% VAT!! Now, there must surley be cheaper stuff out there.. much cheaper.

[gravious @ Sep 2nd 2007 5:15PM]

If you read the article... these were jan 2007 prices. It would cost half the price now they've since worked out. Sheesh, give them some credit.

[Stupidiot @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:53AM]

But will it run Doom?

[DickHardknocks @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:34AM]

Not only will it run DOOM, it will even run DOOM 2 !

[raymie @ Sep 2nd 2007 5:06PM]

it'll run doom 1, 2, and 3 all at the same time

[captain underpants and the bringdown gang @ Sep 2nd 2007 7:42PM]

yeah but the main question is...will it blend?

[Jose @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:55AM]

Uh.. so, all they've done is put together 4 computers and a switch in a single "enclosure" made of plexiglass. What's the innovation? There's nothing that I can see that they have done, that some of us already have laying around.

[Mr. Yetti @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:47AM]

When's the last time you (or any of us) actually built a Beowulf cluster, as opposed to using them for jokes? This system is reliant on the shared power of multiple computers processing cooperatively. Simple, and I (hope) you know how that goes. The innovation comes from a) tying together modern mobos in a beowulf cluster, b) doing so on the cheap, c) doing so in a wonderfully compact form factor. Another key here is that this is a student's research endevour, so give the kid some credit for doing something that you haven't.

[Jose @ Sep 2nd 2007 11:32AM]

My Yetti,

But, a) beowulf clusters already exists, so building another is not innovative, b) cheap does not equal innovation, c) at least I gave partial credit on small form factor. I still don't see your point.

[Devin @ Sep 2nd 2007 1:50PM]

Being so cheap is most definitely an innovation. Read the article. It's the first cluster to cost less than $100/Gflop.

Over twice as fast as deep blue and $5 million less? Awesome.

Let's put it in terms you might understand, Jose.

Automobiles had been invented before the Model T came around. The Model T was nothing special in of itself, but the fact that it was able to be mass produced for a fraction of the price of competing cars was its claim to fame. Making something so powerful so easy to build or get a hold of is definitely innovative.

[Wwhat @ Sep 2nd 2007 2:06PM]

I agree though, the innovation is done by intel/amd and the RAM manufacturers, they create cheap enough parts so any 'genius' can build a cheap and fast computercluster.

[mike @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:59AM]

Okay, I must be missing something. Near as I can tell this is a modestly impressive packaging story. They haven't done anything in terms of tools development or architectural engineering.

Yawn ....

[Mike @ Sep 2nd 2007 11:02AM]

Sorry. Yes they have done innovation. The interconnection between the systems using dual gigabit Ethernet ports is just one.

[Jay @ Sep 2nd 2007 7:02PM]

Are mike and Mike the same person?

[mike @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:54PM]

No. I (the first Mike) would have a hard time claiming that dual gbE qualifies as "innovation" and keeping a straight face.

[Soleil @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:02AM]

All of the details/specs can be found here:

http://www.calvin.edu/~adams/research/microwulf/

[ScOObyDoo @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:29AM]

It's big and it is ugly. Your average gamer could build a nicer, faster and smaller machine for the same price.

[Sheps @ Sep 2nd 2007 7:23PM]

A Beowulf cluster isn't designed for gaming, it's designed for crunching huge amounts of data, such as Seti@home, weather forecast simulations, or perhaps a CAD model.

[DickHardknocks @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:33AM]

Playstation 3's can process over 2 Teraflops. There is software which allows people who are not using their PS3's to help analyze data towards Cancer Research.
If you hooked 5 PS3's together you'd do well better than this PC here.

[Neebs @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:35AM]

ORLY?

[matt @ Sep 2nd 2007 12:05PM]

It has a theoretical performance of 2 teraflops, but current code optimizations don't get anywhere near that.

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 2nd 2007 11:21AM]

2 tera flops X 5 = 10 teraflops...

this is 26.

more like 13 ps3's.

or maybe the 5 or something if they had dual ethernet ports (each), which they don't. thanks for your brilliant insight, go back to playing video games now.

[drstrangegun @ Sep 2nd 2007 11:47AM]

No dj-kenpo, this system is .026 teraflops. One teraflop is a thousand gigaflops.

That is, unless either the article or the "PS3 will do 2 tera" factoid is wrong.

[HineyWipe @ Sep 2nd 2007 12:07PM]

It would need 13 PS3s and that would be 3x their budget. Yes, the PS3 is powerful but the point here was that he built a scaled supercomputer with inexpensive parts and clustered it. Way to go! now, solve bureaucracy with it!

[Wwhat @ Sep 2nd 2007 2:30PM]

How much RAM did the PS3 have again? 640KB?

[Max Fun @ Sep 3rd 2007 12:35AM]

Err... this 'Supercomputer' does 26.25 gigaflops, not teraflops, so I think 1 PS3 will beat it pretty convincingly.

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:53AM]

I thought teraflops were scary places you could sleep inexpensively!

I thought petaflops were scary places that animal rights activists slept inexpensively!

[Dubthezombie @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:58AM]

I heard the Cell had so much processing power it could find a cure for AIDS overnight, but Sony are holding it back for a future firmware update.

[Jay @ Sep 2nd 2007 7:11PM]

Is it 'Sony is' or 'Sony are' that is correct? I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi, I'm genuinely curious. And I've seen enough comments on this site to believe that many people will be more than willing to answer my question.

[CaptSaltyJack @ Sep 2nd 2007 8:35PM]

Jay: If you're genuinely curious, "Sony is" is correct. Even if Sony is a group of people, a group is still referred to as a singular object. (wow, I almost typed cingular.. damn you, marketing)

[matt @ Sep 2nd 2007 11:14AM]

I'm also not entirely sure what the innovation is here. Maybe the speed? My school has been building machines like this for educational purposes for years: http://littlefe.net/ though I don't know how fast these are.

[gravious @ Sep 2nd 2007 5:19PM]

They mention you at the start of their explanation

http://www.calvin.edu/~adams/research/microwulf/

[IrishGandalf @ Sep 2nd 2007 11:38AM]

But will it blend?