Supercomputers

apocalypse · 2003-06-24, 11:28

The new list of the world's largest supercomputers (http://www.top500.org/lists/2003/06/) is out. I don't know how fast we could run LINPACK, but GIMPS would rank about 8th in maximum throughput (as measured on the Primenet stats page).

Prime Monster · 2003-06-24, 18:08

Number three on the top 500 list is the Linux Networx MCR Linux Cluster, which uses 2304 Intel Xeon processors @ 2.4 GHz, as I understand the numbers.

Gimps is currently running 42915 processors of various types:
[code:1]
Intel Pentium 4 : 9033
AMD Athlon : 17022
Intel Pentium III : 8376
Intel Pentium II : 1989
Intel Celeron : 2776
Intel Pentium Pro : 502
Intel Pentium : 1098
AMD K6 : 741
Intel 486 : 40
Cyrix : 1098
Unspecified type : 240
---------------------- -------
TOTAL : 42915
[/code:1]

My personal estimate is that even though we do not run GIMPS at 100% CPU utilization 24/7/365, we are still larger than number three

. Number 2 and 1 uses processors which are a bit more difficult to estimate, but they are approxiomately 2 and 4 times the performance of number 3, based on the Rmax and Rpeak numbers, again as I understand the table. I do not think we are more powerful than the Earth Simulator, but I believe we are close to, or even better than the ASCI Q, although with a highly specialized application. :D

Prime Monster

cheesehead · 2003-06-25, 04:20

But it's not proper to compare GIMPS as though its capacity were 100% of all participating CPUs, because that's not how it works. GIMPS's processing power consists of the spare CPU cycles doled out to a bottom-priority task on each participating computer. To pretend that GIMPS's capacity includes the portion of each participating CPU's cycles that are not used for the GIMPS client is dishonest.

trif · 2003-06-25, 04:46

I think to compare GIMPS you have to compare Gpeak, not Gmax, because the GIMPS numbers are for actually sustained speed. That would put GIMPS at about 6th, except for the other DC projects that pull more horsepower than GIMPS.

2003-06-24, 11:28	#1
apocalypse Feb 2003 2×3×29 Posts	Supercomputers The new list of the world's largest supercomputers (http://www.top500.org/lists/2003/06/) is out. I don't know how fast we could run LINPACK, but GIMPS would rank about 8th in maximum throughput (as measured on the Primenet stats page).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SGI Rolls Out "Personal Supercomputers"	Mini-Geek	Lounge	15	2009-09-30 20:21
Desktop Supercomputers	R.D. Silverman	Hardware	3	2008-11-20 17:43
supercomputers and Fermat/double-Mersenne numbers	ixfd64	Lounge	3	2004-12-27 21:13

2003-06-24, 18:08	#2
Prime Monster Aug 2002 2²·5·13 Posts	Number three on the top 500 list is the Linux Networx MCR Linux Cluster, which uses 2304 Intel Xeon processors @ 2.4 GHz, as I understand the numbers. Gimps is currently running 42915 processors of various types: [code:1] Intel Pentium 4 : 9033 AMD Athlon : 17022 Intel Pentium III : 8376 Intel Pentium II : 1989 Intel Celeron : 2776 Intel Pentium Pro : 502 Intel Pentium : 1098 AMD K6 : 741 Intel 486 : 40 Cyrix : 1098 Unspecified type : 240 ---------------------- ------- TOTAL : 42915 [/code:1] My personal estimate is that even though we do not run GIMPS at 100% CPU utilization 24/7/365, we are still larger than number three . Number 2 and 1 uses processors which are a bit more difficult to estimate, but they are approxiomately 2 and 4 times the performance of number 3, based on the Rmax and Rpeak numbers, again as I understand the table. I do not think we are more powerful than the Earth Simulator, but I believe we are close to, or even better than the ASCI Q, although with a highly specialized application. :D Prime Monster

2003-06-25, 04:20	#3
cheesehead "Richard B. Woods" Aug 2002 Wisconsin USA 2²×3×641 Posts	But it's not proper to compare GIMPS as though its capacity were 100% of all participating CPUs, because that's not how it works. GIMPS's processing power consists of the spare CPU cycles doled out to a bottom-priority task on each participating computer. To pretend that GIMPS's capacity includes the portion of each participating CPU's cycles that are not used for the GIMPS client is dishonest.

2003-06-25, 04:46	#4
trif Aug 2002 CA₁₆ Posts	I think to compare GIMPS you have to compare Gpeak, not Gmax, because the GIMPS numbers are for actually sustained speed. That would put GIMPS at about 6th, except for the other DC projects that pull more horsepower than GIMPS.