Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
TRENDING TODAY
Home > News > Technology and Gadgets > CPU

September 7th, 2012, 02:21 GMT · By

Intel Xeon Phi to Power World's Most Power-Efficient HPC Data Center

SHARE:

Adjust text size:

Intel's Xeon-Phi Compute Accelerator Card
Enlarge picture
Multinational company Intel is trying very hard to put its new Xeon Phi GPU compute accelerator cards into a good light as most reports show that it only has modest achievements as we’ve revealed here.

Intel’s Xeon Phi is the result of almost a decade of work from the company’s specialists and huge investments into various different projects that culminated with the current implementation.

When the world’s largest CPU manufacturer dedicates so many funds and such a long R & D time to a project, many would expect that the end result is something that will blow the competition away.

The reality is that the company is still struggling to reach the 1 TFLOP DP FP64 performance goal and despite the fact that this value was presented in most of Intel’s previous presentations, it is still not an official specification.

Intel is now working with HP at building a new HPC system at National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the company claims that it will reach an impressive 1.06 PUE rating once finished.

PUE is short for power usage effectiveness, and a PUE rating of 2.0 depicts a system where for every watt of power used for IT equipment, an additional watt is used in overhead by the cooling systems.

Editor’s Note:

I was involved in designing and building several HPC systems at our Nuclear Research Laboratory and the system power consumption / AC power consumption ratio was an important aspect of our project.

Basically, the situation is as follows: when a server consumes 1000 watts, there will be 1000 watts worth of heat dissipated inside the server room.

That’s quite a lot and ten racks with ten servers each will dissipate an amazing 100 KW worth of heat and that’s more than 50 room heaters that are each blowing with 2 KW of power.

The owner of the server will pay for those 1000 watts consumed by the server, but he will also have to pay for those 1000 watts of heat to be removed from the server room.

A normal AC unit uses roughly 1200 watts of power to remove 1000 watts worth of heat from the room.

The end result is that the server owner gets 1000 watts worth of computing performance, but he has to pay for 2200 watts of energy and that’s a 120% overhead.

Therefore, power consumption in HPC data centers is a very important issue.


Intel’s claim of a PUE rating of 1.06 can’t really be verified right now as the system is not finished, but it can be calculated using the official guidelines.

The main aspect is the fact that such a high level of efficiency can only be achieved by improving the way the cooling system works and, if you have systems that consume modest amounts of heat, the server room will heat up less and slower.

When you have a server room that is heating up slower and contains systems that don’t suddenly dissipate high amounts of heat, you will be able to cool it by other means and not use the usual AC units found in most modest implementations.

Such a high performance system with such a complex array of servers will most certainly use intelligent cooling solutions that will be able to keep the temperature in check with a modest overhead.

We doubt that the system will reach the touted 1.06 PUE value, but we wish Intel and HP good luck.

The conclusion is that the efficiency is not really coming from the Xeon Phi or the Sandy Bridge E processors, but from the way the cooling system is designed, especially when the PUE rating is the main criteria.


1,995 hits · 3 comments
Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


ASUS Reveals ROG TYTAN CG8890 Gaming System

Nvidia GK106-875 Is a Single-Slot Quadro Card with 3GB GDDR5

Panasonic Packs Ivy Bridge Inside ToughBook 19 Rugged TabletPC

GlobalFoundries Samples 64-Core RISC Processors in 28nm Technology

AMD Experiments with Different CPU Design Methods – Part 2

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: rafamar on 07 Sep 2012, 21:22 UTC reply to this comment

lately it seems you are always talking negative about Intels claims. And very positive of AMD non released future products. The products are not released so please just write objective. Both companies have products that worked worse or better then the pre release marketing PR of these companies. Bulldozer did not deliver what the PR wamted us to believe. And intel gave us Ivy bridge with lower TDP than SB but temperture that is worst than SB. on the GPU front intel made progress with better perfomance and better drivers than SB. but AMD still has tghe better graphics performance and drivers.
Dont get me wrong. it's good to be of opinion that you dont believe untill you see it. But you should use such a opinion the same way for every company, because we all now that they all to some degree us fals marketing to trick us

Comment #1.1 by: Constantin Murariu on 10 Sep 2012, 06:21 GMT

I'm very glad I've been clear in my articles and that readers, including you, have understood them right.

Yes, I'm positively evaluating AMD's approach on some architectures, but I'm happy everybody got the right idea as these are just estimations on unreleased products, not performance figures.

I'm also happy that I've presented Intel's claims right as the company's own released and available products behave like described.

Here, considering my background in server and computing hardware in general, I wanted to point out that most of the PUE efficiency comes from the cooling setup and not from the processing architecture.

On the other hand, yet Intel’s Ivy Bridge IPC achievement is impressive and the power consumption reduction is laudable, but then Intel had to mess it up by using low quality TIM.

The iGPUs are acceptable which in itself is a great achievement from Intel, a company that has struggled for more than a decade to build decent GPUs with acceptable drivers.

A 100% performance jump from Sandy Bridge is very impressive, but we should not forget that SB graphics was undesirable.

Twice better than “undesirable” might make it acceptable, but certainly not commendable.

Comment #1.2 by: Constantin Murariu on 10 Sep 2012, 06:21 GMT

Thank you very much for your input!

Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM