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

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.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Related Articles













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