Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Intel Supercomputing Hardware

Intel Squeezes 1.8 TFlops Out of One Processor 168

Posted by Hemos
from the that's-a-lotta-juice dept.
Jagdeep Poonian writes "It appears as though Intel has been able to squeeze 1.8 TFlops out of one processor and with a power consumption of 62 watts." The AP version of the story is mostly the same; a more technical examination of TeraScale is also available.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Squeezes 1.8 TFlops Out of One Processor

Comments Filter:
  • by xoyoboxoyobo (945657) on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:28AM (#17982302)
    That's not 62 watts at 1.8 teraflops. That's 62 watts at 3.16 GHz FTFA: "Intel claims that it can scale the voltage and clock speed of the processor to gain even more floating point performance. For example, at 5.1 GHz, the chip reaches 1.63 TFlops (2.61 Tb/s) and at 5.7 GHz the processor hits 1.81 TFlops (2.91 Tb/s). However, power consumption rises quickly as well: Intel measured 175 watts at 5.1 GHz and 265 watts at 5.7 GHz. However, considering the fact that just 202 of these 80-core processors could replicate the floating point performance of today's highest performing supercomputer, those power consumption numbers appear even more convincing: The Department of Energy's BlueGene/L system, rated at a peak performance of 367 TFlops, houses 65,536 dual core processors."
  • by doomy (7461) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:08AM (#17982788) Homepage Journal
    33 of these CPU's should be more than enough to construct Lt. Cmdr Data [].
  • by ispeters (621097) <ispeters@aluSLAC ... .ca minus distro> on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:45AM (#17983282)

    Secondly, why is the parallelizable nature of ray tracing embarrassing?! It's parallelizable exactly because each ray is computed independently of other rays - I don't see what is embarrassing or surprising about that.

    It's embarrassing because "Embarrassingly parallel" [] is the technical term for problems like ray tracing. It's a parallelizable problem wherein the concurrently-executing threads don't need to communicate with each other in order to complete their tasks so the performance of a parallel solution scales almost perfectly linearly with the number of processors that you throw at the problem.


  • by Heembo (916647) on Monday February 12, 2007 @12:49PM (#17984116) Journal
    I used to teach 5th grade computer class, and please do not underestimate the power of Clippy(tm). I would instruct my students to remove Clippy, as I have done per habit for so long, but they would rebel. I recall at least several classes where Clippy hypnotized my class (and kept them preoccupied and easy to deal with.)

Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?