5 ms·
The wikipedia page for this is great >In 2013 DOE presented their exascale vision of one exaFLOP at 20 MW by 2020.[6] Aurora was first announced in 2015 and to
by SilverBirch 4y ago
The wikipedia page for this is great
>In 2013 DOE presented their exascale vision of one exaFLOP at 20 MW by 2020.[6] Aurora was first announced in 2015 and to be finished in 2018. It was expected to have a speed of 180 petaFLOPS[7] which would be around the speed of Summit. Aurora was meant to be the most powerful supercomputer at the time of its launch and to be built by Cray with Intel processors. Later, in 2017, Intel announced that Aurora would be delayed to 2021 but scaled up to 1 exaFLOP. In March 2019, DOE said that it would build the first supercomputer with a performance of one exaFLOP in the United States in 2021.[8] In October 2020, DOE said that Aurora would be delayed again for a further 6 months and would no longer be the first exascale computer in the US.[9] In late October 2021 Intel announced Aurora would now exceed 2 exaFLOPS in peak double-precision compute.[10]
So you announced a machine in 2015 to be delivered in 2018, so a project to take 3 years. In 2017 you then announced you're not going to deliver it at all. You announce a delay to deliver something different in 3 years. That's not a delay, that's just scrapping the project and starting a new one. Just because you call it the same thing doesn't mean anyone believes you.
I do wonder how much cash Intel rinsed out of the DOE for delivering nothing. You would've thought that since the DOE announced a target of 1 Exaflop in 2020, and Intel delivers 0 exaflops, that Intel would make a big loss on this, I bet they didn't.
- q-big 4y ago> exaFLOP Nitpick: FLOPS (floating point operations per second) is singular. "FLOP" is "floating point operations per", which does not make sense. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS
- mort96 4y agoTo make it even more confusing, FLOP is sometimes used to mean "floating point operation", so it can be correct to say that a computation takes 1000 FLOPs. A machine with 2000 FLOPS would do 1000 FLOPs in half a second.
- denton-scratch 4y ago> To make it even more confusing, FLOP is sometimes used to mean "floating point operation" Yes, sometimes people use words wrongly. > so it can be correct to say that a computation takes 1000 FLOPs. No; that is incorrect, and it's unsurprising that ignorant misuse of technical terminology results in confusion.
- dekhn 4y agoThis has been true about FLOPs for decades; the term is ambiguous and there isn't "one right way" in this case. In written form I use FLOP/s and FLOPs
- sbf501 4y ago> I do wonder how much cash Intel rinsed out of the DOE for delivering nothing. And here I thought Gelsinger was supposed to be a return to "technical" leadership.
- ren_engineer 4y agothe project started in 2015 and he took over in 2021, not sure how much a new CEO can be blamed for this project being a disaster
- sbf501 4y agoOh yeah, good point. I was conflating the DOE grant from years ago with the most recent investment in US semiconductors (which I personally think amounts to a shareholder bailout, hence my jibe).
- retcore 4y agoIs there any record of the DoE _not requesting that the first announced specification didn't require a leapfrog step up due to the shifting industry performance and especially performance per Watt targets, roadmaps, application specific development or any bureaucratic and budgetary revision reasons? (Post Sandy Lake and AMD 7001/2 AVX512 timeframe, GPU market including crypto demand wafer budgets, 100Gbps + and Omnipath spinkill / Slingshot introduction interconnect and even plain old changes in the codes desired to be run.