3 ms·

It's worse than that. There's literally nothing similar about these systems. One is a system designed for the supercomputer MareNostrum 4 and the other for Mare

It's worse than that. There's literally nothing similar about these systems. One is a system designed for the supercomputer MareNostrum 4 and the other for MareNostrom 5 (a completely different system).... So old CPU, but also different network cards, topology, memory (capacity and speed), storage system, operating system (SuSE from 2016 vs Ubuntu 22)... and so on. For example, they went from 10Gb ethernet to 200Gb infiniband. And then they took all of the performance improvements that each of these contribute... and attributed them to the Nvidia CPU.

stonogo 3y ago
This is a misrepresentation. Included in the analyses are single-node runs, which don't care about network cards etc. This is a platform comparison, not a CPU showdown; among the questions here is whether Grace-based nodes are feasible at all for production HPC. The answer is a tentative yes, although I still have concerns about cooling at this density in a general-use (i.e. highly fluctuating) workload. But mostly, these numbers are for their users, who are aware the system contract has been awarded but want to know what to expect when their workloads hit the new system. Incidentally, MareNostrum 4 has a 100gbit Omnipath fabric. I'm sure they'd love to test against latest Omnipath, but Intel dumped the tech, so our choices these days are 200/400 gbit Ethernet or similar-throughput Infiniband.