4 ms·
1.5 exaflops, 30 megawatts, around 50 GFLOPs per watt? Impressive if true; that's 3x more efficient than the current top of the Green500.
by gok 8y ago
1.5 exaflops, 30 megawatts, around 50 GFLOPs per watt? Impressive if true; that's 3x more efficient than the current top of the Green500.
- Symmetry 8y agoMoore's law might have stopped with the clock gains when Denard scaling gave out but we've still got energy efficiency gains. Koomey's law[1] is holding strong. I don't know if it'll get us all the way to Landauer's Limit[2] but I hope so. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koomey%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koomey%27s_law [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle
- tntn 8y agoIt's probably not a great comparison to compare the theoretical numbers of Frontier to the achieved numbers of the green 500. The achieved flops is pretty much always considerably lower than the theoretical flops. Titan is a 27 PFLOPS machine that achieves 17.6 PFLOPS, sequoia is a 20 PFLOPS machine that achieves 17, summit is a 200 PFLOPS machine that achieves 143, ... ~ 37 GFLOPS/W is probably a better projection if we assume (out of nowhere) that the theoretical/achieved ratio of Frontier is comparable to Summit (75%). Still very impressive.
- gok 8y agoWell they don't usually hit their peak power usage either; Summit is rated at 13 MW but used less than 10 during its LINPACK run. But fair point.
- kincl 8y agoGPUs help considerably here, taking a look at previous ORNL machines: Jaguar | 2.3 PF XT5 (CPU-only) | 7 MW for HPL Titan | 27 PF XK7 (1:1 CPU to GPU) | 8.2 MW Summit | 186 PF (2:6 CPU to GPU | 8.8 MW Overall, substantial changes in computing power and 10%-20% increase in power.