Worlds Fastest Computer

eddie101 said:
Reminds me of a program i was watching the other night all about Quantum Computing..... was quite interesting..... honest
Click to expand...

quantumcomputers.GIF


hsugh.gif
 
is still makes me wonder. I bet if all of the supercomputers in the world were put on folding proteins we could discover and cure some major illnesses within a week.
Alternatively we can now reach 1,000,000 fps in quake 3!
 
mpj88 said:
How many gpus?!!!
Click to expand...

None ;)

Lik daz said, problems will have to be designed specifically to take advantage of the computer's vast number of processors. Running an every day program on it that isn't optimised for multiple processors probably wouldn't yield a huge performance increase.
 
daz said:
Only issue i have with this is there's nothing unique or special about this computer - it just has more 'grunt' than the computers that were before it.

It's incredibly parallel which means it has to be working on a very specific set of problems to achieve anywhere near it's max theoretical operating speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahls_Law

:o
Click to expand...
Amdahls law is flawed in that he assumes the proportion of parallel to sequential processing is fixed as the size of problem n increases. Gustafson's law is a better model for speedup of parallel computing.

Also the supercomputer is unique due to it's hybrid architecture, it is not merely adding more grunt as it uses only 10% of the number of processors that BlueGene/L uses.
 
Eriedor said:
Amdahls law is flawed in that he assumes the proportion of parallel to sequential processing is fixed as the size of problem n increases. Gustafson's law is a better model for speedup of parallel computing.

Also the supercomputer is unique due to it's hybrid architecture
Click to expand...

Aye, it's just a simple way of explaining why n processors isn't always the best. :)

Hybrid computers (heterogenerous parallel computers) aren't unique though. :confused:
 
Time to compute a single work unit would be the same as one processor, but you would give each processor core it's own work unit to get on with. So it would be working on 100,000 or so work units simultaneously.
 
Abraham said:
anyone else think it unlikely that the government would "unveil" their fastest computer

i.e. they've got faster theyre just not talking about

i dont mean in a big conspiracy theory way, just that the most advanced technology isnt usually public knowledge
Click to expand...

The NSA will have something that is probably ten times faster than that.
 
oxygene said:
is still makes me wonder. I bet if all of the supercomputers in the world were put on folding proteins we could discover and cure some major illnesses within a week.
Alternatively we can now reach 1,000,000 fps in quake 3!
Click to expand...

Its not quite as easy as that I am afraid, someone still has to make the drug and test it, that and it it probably has side affects.

I get 998 fps in q3 timedemo which looks like a cap at 1000 anyway !
 
I remember not that long ago, 6 years ago or so there being an article in some paper about a University project that had created the fastest single computer in the world and how it had to be kept in the freezer at like -10 or something because as soon as you turned it on it generated so much heat.

I cant remember the exact speed but I know it was definitely much less than you could buy in asda on one of those starter home pc packs.

I dont see the point in making these supercomputers, I mean obviously I see the advantages of having them but I dont get why they make these finished definitive articles and go "fastest EVER" because they're lucky to get it finished by the time someone else, or even someone from the same company has made one thats faster, cheaper and more efficient.

I reckon the supercomputers that were litterin IBMs labs 15 years ago arent a patch on what most of the computers sittin on this forum's desks and I reckon in another 15 20 years we'll all have them sittin on our desks and readin posts about a supercomputer that can do 10 million times the calculations that our pcs can do.
 
anksta said:
I dont see the point in making these supercomputers, I mean obviously I see the advantages of having them but I dont get why they make these finished definitive articles and go "fastest EVER" because they're lucky to get it finished by the time someone else, or even someone from the same company has made one thats faster, cheaper and more efficient.
.
Click to expand...

:confused: they cost loads, take a while to build and aren't many in the world

anksta said:
I reckon the supercomputers that were litterin IBMs labs 15 years ago arent a patch on what most of the computers sittin on this forum's desks and I reckon in another 15 20 years we'll all have them sittin on our desks and readin posts about a supercomputer that can do 10 million times the calculations that our pcs can do.
Click to expand...
that's technology for you, doesn't make supercomputers any less impressive though. 10-20 years is a huge time in computing terms.
 
AcidHell2 said:
:confused: they cost loads, take a while to build and aren't many in the world


that's technology for you, doesn't make supercomputers any less impressive though. 10-20 years is a huge time in computing terms.
Click to expand...



but thats it though innit like you say, that one in that article says it took 6 years to build and that in computin terms is almost an Age so by the time you've finished your supercomputer and just diallin Guinness, some other swine has knocked one up in his shed that makes yours look like a 5110
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom