CUDA runs on Windows, why not cluster a bunch of GTX280s or 9800GX2 cards? I think you would get a bit better number with 9,472 GPU cores instead of CPU cores.
What are you talking about use a bunch of GPU cores? GPU is for graphics and CPU is for memory and processes. Two different things. Plus GPUs just help the CPU by getting some of the graphics power of the CPU. So in otherwords, why on earth would you want that many GPU cores? It also wastes a ton of power and the motherboard would easily shut down due to heat.
9472 cores, assuming two socket quad-core processors equates to 1184 servers. If these are regular 1U servers (not blades or twin servers) then that would require 28.2 racks (42U fully populated)
That is a pretty large cluster, but by no means the largest system of its kind.
Now lets look at a GPU solution. Lets assume you can put two of these cards into a 3U rackmount server. That means you need 4736 servers just to house them (assuming one GPU core per card). To house that you will need 338.29 racks alone!
Rob, let me point you towards these guys http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_s1070.html 70 of these would beat out your 1184 servers four Telsa gpus per unit, 280 total gpus 67,200 stream processors
That wasn't my point. The video was to say that you can make an affordable one. Yes, granted you have 8 processors going all at once. You should just get a Mac Pro, because it uses 8 also and costs less, but we don't consider that a supercomputer. Granted it's fast, but it's not a supercomputer.
My point originally was that it consumes more power than a normal cpu unit. Also like stated earlier you would have to have many cabinets chained together to run something that size.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
CUDA runs on Windows, why not cluster a bunch of GTX280s or 9800GX2 cards? I think you would get a bit better number with 9,472 GPU cores instead of CPU cores.
What are you talking about use a bunch of GPU cores? GPU is for graphics and CPU is for memory and processes. Two different things. Plus GPUs just help the CPU by getting some of the graphics power of the CPU. So in otherwords, why on earth would you want that many GPU cores? It also wastes a ton of power and the motherboard would easily shut down due to heat.
sure... let do some math
9472 cores, assuming two socket quad-core processors equates to 1184 servers. If these are regular 1U servers (not blades or twin servers) then that would require 28.2 racks (42U fully populated)
That is a pretty large cluster, but by no means the largest system of its kind.
Now lets look at a GPU solution. Lets assume you can put two of these cards into a 3U rackmount server. That means you need 4736 servers just to house them (assuming one GPU core per card). To house that you will need 338.29 racks alone!
To run Crysis..?
I stooped that low eh..
Dude, I wouldn't want to be in the room to play that game. At least there's no lag. :D
@ Ryan...
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/29/researchers-create-supercomputer-with-four-geforce-9800-gx2-card/
Look a supe compuer made out of Grafx Cards!
A processor is a processor! It does not matter what their intended use is. All prcessors are designed to crunch numbers.
Rob, let me point you towards these guys
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_s1070.html
70 of these would beat out your 1184 servers
four Telsa gpus per unit, 280 total gpus 67,200 stream processors
@TravisJohn
That wasn't my point. The video was to say that you can make an affordable one. Yes, granted you have 8 processors going all at once. You should just get a Mac Pro, because it uses 8 also and costs less, but we don't consider that a supercomputer. Granted it's fast, but it's not a supercomputer.
My point originally was that it consumes more power than a normal cpu unit. Also like stated earlier you would have to have many cabinets chained together to run something that size.