backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by ok630.. on Apr 13 at 4:28 AM


IBM Hydro Cluster Water Cooling  (Source: IBM)
IBM Power 575 performs at 600 GFlops per node

Computer enthusiasts that overclock their CPUs have known for a long time that liquid cooling has the potential to cool the processor better than air cooling. Liquid cooling in the enthusiast space is common and has even given way in the extreme performance categories to much more exotic means of cooling processors.

In the supercomputer realm companies like IBM have traditionally relied on air cooling for the CPUs via air conditioning for the room the supercomputer is in. IBM introduced its latest supercomputer called the Power 575, which is equipped with IBM’s latest Power6 microprocessor. The Power 575 has moved from air cooling to liquid cooling and thanks to the liquid cooling useing water-chilled copper plates located above each processor, the new supercomputer requires 80% fewer air conditioning units.

The significantly reduced need for air conditioning means that the energy needed to cool the data center can be reduced by 40%. IBM researchers say water can be up to 4,000 times more efficient than air cooling for computer systems.

The Power 575 supercomputer has 448 cores per rack and provides over five times the performance of its predecessor and is three times more energy efficient per rack. Each rack features 14 2U nodes each consisting of 32 4.7GHz cores of Power6 and 3.5TB of memory. Each node is capable of 600 GFlops and is three times more efficient in GFlops per kilowatt than the Power5 air-cooled processors.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

In 10 years...
By vladio on 4/9/2008 7:24:04 PM , Rating: -1
"In 10 years, a "mini-PC" will be several times more powerful than a full-fledged desktop of today. For most people, that's going to be more than enough power"

To: All Kids on this site
From: Vladimir Orlovsky, 50 years old veteran

Well, 10 years from now... will be Not that different,
from ToDay, as you thinkin.
90-95% of current buildings,bridges will be the same,
60-70% of Big machinery,
as: Plaines, Ships will be the same.
some marginal improvements? shore ...
'Marginal is the Key word.
about Computers....
'Quad CPU 4-5 Ghz' for mainstream, and thats all.
People, still will NOT fly to the Moon or Mars,
People still WILL Died from the sicknesses witch Can be cured for $1-2 thousand dollars...
People still WILL kill each-other for money, Oil and just for fun...
world basicaly will be the same.
Good Luck to Reality !!




RE: In 10 years...
By oopyseohs on 4/9/2008 8:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
10 Years Ago:

Buildings, bridges were the same.
Planes and ships were essentially the same.
Computers were completely different.

Look at a computer from 10 years ago. Although the principles and technology itself has not evolved too much, performance is several orders of magnitude greater. With the current progression of cutting-edge manufacturing processes and various other technologies that are on the horizon, it is fair to say that the next 10 years will see an even more dramatic improvement. "'Quad CPU 4-5 Ghz' for mainstream, and thats all."; this will occur in 2.5 years, max.

It is extremely difficult to predict what things will be like 10 years from now, but if history and science are any indication, the future seems pretty kickass. (Aside from this global climate change hoopla)


RE: In 10 years...
By Captain Orgazmo on 4/9/2008 11:35:46 PM , Rating: 1
If anything, due to sloppy programming, certain important and common computer usages such as spreadsheets and word processing have slowed down in the last ten years.

Also, I'm still waiting for a computer that can effectively take input other than from a good ol' fashioned (or as Scotty would say, quaint) mouse and keyboard (and please don't tell me speech recognition works - or as the computer would probably hear - cheese bone smell my feet wrecking nation worse).


RE: In 10 years...
By lagitup on 4/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: In 10 years...
By nidomus on 4/10/2008 8:30:39 AM , Rating: 3
Is it just me... or is the whole micro$uck/M$/micro$haft thing getting old? I mean seriously? You think you're clever because you can substitute a dollar sign and or derogatory word into the name? I mean it's not like that's been done before. I know this is off topic, but I've been seeing a lot of it lately and its been "grinding my gears". So, I apologize, and at the same time don't.


RE: In 10 years...
By JoshuaBuss on 4/10/2008 12:30:38 AM , Rating: 1
not to mention vista still doesn't boot any faster than DOS used to on a 286.. :\

seems like all our gains in hardware are almost always (for better or for worse) countered by bloated software..


RE: In 10 years...
By porkpie on 4/10/2008 12:37:50 AM , Rating: 5
If you want fast boot times, load DOS 5.0 on your spanky new Core 2 Duo.

Oh wait, you actually LIKE all those new features since then, like a graphical UI, support for multithreading, task switching, more than 640K of RAM, hotswappable hardware like USB keys, etc, etc, etc.

Maybe some of that "bloat" is things you really want hrm? And just maybe (gasp!) its a lot easier to be an armchair-quarterback OS developer, than actually making intelligent comments?


RE: In 10 years...
By Captain Orgazmo on 4/10/2008 2:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
All those things you list are part of XP or older versions Windows. Vista, which I have on two computers, is by comparison to XP, prettier, maybe more Mac-like (pardon my french), has a built in media center (XP MCE? umm..), and is just... better? Oh and as a bonus it takes considerably longer to boot than XP, has half or worse inter- and intra-drive file transfer speeds than XP, is missing the old-fashioned but unfortunately still quite necessary at times fax function (in all but business and ultimate), it cannot remain asleep, waking even out of hibernation on its own (even after manually disabling all device wake capabilities), and has no capability to limit GPU usage while Media Center is maximized (resulting in unnecessary power consumption, heat, and fan noise). But it looks so darn fancy!!! Well, you can't polish a turd.


RE: In 10 years...
By michael67 on 4/10/2008 6:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
Na i rater had that MS had just reworked te code of XP and slim it down, rater then blothed it for Vista whit things we dont use anyway ore realy need.

Aero glass looks nice but if they realy had wanted it to work nice, they should had inplemented Desktop vectoring becouse on LCD screens can only be realy used in native res evryting else gets blurry.

And think you have to explain to me how Vista is more inovated then XP and whit me all the other 600 admins i was whit at the MS Technet seminar for the roll out of server 2008.

during the seminar they MS technet guy go's on explaining all the benefits of Win server 2008 working together whit Vista for a bout 30min then he ask how many had rolled out Vista at work ... silent for 10~20sec
Then he ask how many ware planing to roll out Vista ... silents for a other 10~20sec then the hole room start laughing because the technet guy realized that he just wasted a half our on something no one wanted to use.

Because like me the other 600 admins think Vista is just a lemon that no one wants

And private i haven't notice it on my HP Vista machine IE still crashes and that password protection for everything that makes Vista so mouths more safe was bugging me so mouths that i had to turn it of just to be able to normally work whit Vista

After 3 months working whit Vista i was so fed up whit it that i did format C: and installed XP again so that i had control over my own machine again and my drivers ware working again 100% instead basic function driver.

Yeah there are some small things i liked and miss from Vista, but over all they are not worth all hassle that that blotted Vista gives me to use it over XP


RE: In 10 years...
By maverick85wd on 4/10/2008 9:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
10 Years Ago:

Buildings, bridges were the same.
Planes and ships were essentially the same.
Computers were completely different.


I know nothing of buildings, bridges, or ships. However, I work on avionic equipment and let me tell you... 10 years makes a big change in aircraft communications and flight control systems (not to mention munitions systems, radar systems, and electronic warfare systems for military jets). The air frames may look similar, and in the end they do about the same job... but they are more efficient and reliable. The point is that technology advances on all fronts, it just not may seem as obvious to the masses in many sectors because most do not deal with it on a daily basis. Pretty much everyone uses a computer so they can see the changes. Just look at the F-117 Nighthawk. The last plane wasn't even delivered until 1990 and already it is being retired... in roughly 20 years it went from top-secret project to obsolete.


RE: In 10 years...
By maverick85wd on 4/10/2008 9:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it just not may seem


it just may not seem*.... alright. DT REALLY needs to figure out some way to let people make minor changes to their posts. Either that or I'll just continue smacking myself on the forehead and replying with the correction...


RE: In 10 years...
By B3an on 4/10/2008 2:58:28 AM , Rating: 3
"To: All Kids on this site
From: Vladimir Orlovsky, 50 years old veteran"

Your'd think after 50 years you could spell/write a little better... and you seem more like a kid than 95% of the people on this site.

What your've wrote is just load of meaningless cr@p.


RE: In 10 years...
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/10/2008 2:41:53 PM , Rating: 1
You're late kid:

Intel already has roadmaps suggesting octal cores for late 2009 - 2010.
4ghz quad cores are possible righ here, right now by overcloking (not always an easy feat, though).

10 years ago, the best available CPU was a Slotted Pentium II 333mhz...
A bit far from the 3.2ghz quad cores with huge, integrated, full speed caches, isn't it?

By then bus speeds were in the order of 66mhz. The latest and greatest bus speed as of now is 1333mhz (20 times as much... and we've got 64bit external buses vs. 32bit ones by then)

By then we had... 33mhz, 32bit PCI slots. Featuring 133mb/s bandwidths (same as actual PCI slots). Living beside some 16bit ISA slots (8mhz, 16bits = 16mb/s).

Now we have the same PCI slots, but we also have 100mhz, x16 PCIe slots sporting in excess of 4gb/s bandwidths.

Best graphics card by then was arguably a matrox millenium for 2d, and the 3d only 3dfx voodoo2 (or better, 2 of them in SLI) which needed to be coupled to a 2d graphics card to work.

Things have changed quite a bit in the PC arena. And will keep on changing at the same frantic pace.

We had 30gb drives. 7200rpm ATA drives were just appearing on the market, with 256kb of integrated cache.
Our best optical units were 32x Max cdroms.
Floppy drives were mandatory. Some of us even still had 5.25 "high density" units laying around for the sake of compatibility.

We had somthing like 16mb of sdram, 66mhz, 80ns access time dimms in our systems back then. Now we have 1333+ ddr3, 2ns access time modules... and 4gbs.

And you said that things didn't change and will not?
Yes, of course, whatever you say.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki