Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Friday November 22, @07:43PM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

When Cray Computing, a supercomputer manufacturer acquired by HP in 2019, announced that it would build El Capitan it expected the computer to reach a peak performance of 1.5 exaflops. Today, the 64th edition of the TOP500 — a long-running ranking of the world's non-distributed supercomputers — was published, and El Capitan not only exceeded that forecast by clocking 1.742 exaflops, but has claimed the title as the most powerful supercomputer in the world right now.

El Capitan is only the third “exascale” computer, meaning it can perform more than a quintillion calculations in a second. The other two, called Frontier and Aurora, claim the second and third place slots on the TOP500 now. Unsurprisingly, all of these massive machines live within government research facilities: El Capitan is housed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Frontier is at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Argonne National Laboratory claims Aurora. Cray had a hand in all three systems.

El Capitan has more than 11 million combined CPU and GPU cores based on AMD 4th-gen EPYC processors. These 24-core processors are rated at 1.8GHz each and have AMD Instinct M1300A APUs. It's also relatively efficient, as such systems go, squeezing out an estimated 58.89 Gigaflops per watt.

If you’re wondering what El Capitan is built for, the answer is addressing nuclear stockpile safety, but it can also be used for nuclear counterterrorism. Being more powerful than anticipated, it’s likely to occupy the throne for a long while before another exascale computer overtakes it.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @08:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @08:19PM (#1382895)

    I don't think I want to know how it would do that.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hopdevil on Friday November 22, @08:24PM (11 children)

    by hopdevil (3356) on Friday November 22, @08:24PM (#1382896) Journal

    .. to address nuclear stockpile safety?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Friday November 22, @09:14PM (4 children)

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @09:14PM (#1382900)
      Ummm that's a legitimate question. Why is it flamebait? What's with the shitty moderations [soylentnews.org] today?
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @09:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @09:45PM (#1382906)

        "What's with the shitty moderations [soylentnews.org] today?"

        The Right/Libertarians are showing their fangs/true nature after Their Hero won.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by corey on Friday November 22, @10:45PM

        by corey (2202) on Friday November 22, @10:45PM (#1382913)

        I have it a +1 Insightful because I thought the same.

        I guess (haven’t yet read others replies) that it is used to model nuclear fallout across the continental US. I’ve seen an article in the last year in Scientific American about this, showing the danger levels for people in case of an explosion at the main nuke sites.

        But part of me thinks it should be used for better purposes. Like modelling climate change or finding a cure for cancer.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23, @10:59AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23, @10:59AM (#1382971)

        Calm down cowboy, these things rectify themselves after a few minutes.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday November 23, @11:28AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 23, @11:28AM (#1382973) Journal

          One person moderated it down, and 4 people have moderated it up. Currently at +5.

          --
          I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 22, @10:23PM (3 children)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @10:23PM (#1382910) Journal

      It might have something to do with the complicated mix of isotopes in the warheads, how they decay over time (how the elements transmute into other elements) and the implications that has for the radiation emitted (and therefore structural integrity of the weapon) and then for the prediction as to what will happen if it ever needs to be detonated in anger.

      Then there's the consideration about what might happen if those changes made it easier to accidentally detonate? I doubt it, I'm not an expert but this is just thinking out loud.

      Then there's the consideration of how to dispose of it after its useful life. That will all depend on the mix of isotopes. Again, I'm not an expert.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hopdevil on Friday November 22, @11:57PM (2 children)

        by hopdevil (3356) on Friday November 22, @11:57PM (#1382921) Journal

        From what I can tell after very basic research it seems more about "performance" than safety. I think the US doesn't test nukes, they simulate.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Saturday November 23, @12:07PM (1 child)

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 23, @12:07PM (#1382975) Journal

          Ah, yes, the safety of it being a credible deterrent, i.e. it'll go off properly when used.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday November 23, @12:46PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 23, @12:46PM (#1382981) Journal

            Ah, yes, the safety of it being a credible deterrent, i.e. it'll go off properly when used.

            That is the number one use of nuclear weapons. While a certain amount of uncertainty is probably a good thing (to dial back strategies of brinkmanship), too much generates all kinds of risks. For example, use it or lose it, or starting up real nuclear tests. To add to the latter, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia starts up nuclear tests at some point in the near future because their military has serious corruption and quality control issues that probably have leaked into their nuclear weapons readiness.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by epitaxial on Friday November 22, @11:55PM

      by epitaxial (3165) on Friday November 22, @11:55PM (#1382920)

      To simulate what happens to aging bombs without setting them off.

    • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Saturday November 23, @07:33AM

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Saturday November 23, @07:33AM (#1382965)

      First guess, simulation of the core of the weapons. If "safety" includes reliability, simulating whether one would work after aging and helium bubbles sounds computationally expensive.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by dwilson98052 on Friday November 22, @10:03PM (2 children)

    by dwilson98052 (17613) on Friday November 22, @10:03PM (#1382907)

    ...not HP.

    The two are not the same.

    HPE makes servers, storage arrays, supercomputers, etc...

    HP makes printers, laptops, consumer workstations, etc...

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by dwilson98052 on Friday November 22, @10:08PM (1 child)

      by dwilson98052 (17613) on Friday November 22, @10:08PM (#1382908)

      They also purchased SGI... not Silicon Graphics, but rather what was left of them after Rackable Systems purchased them and handed the money and the reigns to the same idiots that ran Silicon Graphics into bankruptcy in the first place... all so the CEO at the time could put a notch on his belt and say he saved SGI.

      Source: I was there............

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Thexalon on Saturday November 23, @12:46AM (3 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Saturday November 23, @12:46AM (#1382922)

    "A mere abacus, mention it not."

    --
    "Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday November 25, @05:21PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 25, @05:21PM (#1383296) Journal

      So I checked the Top 500 list.

      No Deep Thought.

      I used the Sublist generator. One of the dropdowns is "OS". So I tried the various choices "Linux", "Mac OS", "Windows", "Unix", "Free BSD", "BSD based", etc.

      All 500 appear to be running Linux. FWIW.

      --
      When you GOTO a dark place, always PEEK before you POKE.
      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 25, @07:03PM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 25, @07:03PM (#1383326)

        That's because it's a fictional computer from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The reference to said fictional computer being what we might refer to as a "joke".

        --
        "Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday November 25, @10:38PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 25, @10:38PM (#1383345) Journal

          It should have been number 42 on the list.

          --
          When you GOTO a dark place, always PEEK before you POKE.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, @02:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, @02:15PM (#1383268)
    Now I have that song stuck in my head
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Buwjgi1xV7U [youtube.com]
(1)