Supercomputer variant of Kahan quote

Article: Intel's Near-Threshold Voltage Computing and Applications
By: Emil Briggs (me.delete@this.nowherespam.com), October 20, 2012 7:34 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Emil Briggs (me.delete@this.nowherespam.com) on October 20, 2012 8:33 am wrote:
> > >
> > > Just for reference. I'm not
> > anonymous and I could
> care less
> > > about tenure.
> > >
> > That's a good
> >
> start.
> >
> > > A lot of supercomputer time gets used for density
> functional
> >
> > > calculations. And it has produced valid and useful
> results that are
> > interesting
> > > both commercially and from a
> pure science perspective. Indeed
> > such calculations
> > > have helped
> produce that desktop that you talk about
> > since a detailed
> > >
> understanding of the physical mechanisms involved is
> > important to
> improving
> > > semiconductor processes.
> > >
> > I was about two
>
> > say that, well, you're the first person who hasn't responded to the
> effect that
> > we are using horrible approximations with these big boxes to
> get answers with
> > unknown and unknowable accuracy. But then I remembered
> two things. I have
> > previously been informed by what I take to be a solid
> state physicist at IBM
> > Watson that they were calculating solid state
> problems with answers accurate to
> > five digits. Then I also remembered
> that one of the big open problems of big
> > box computing was that
> predictions of electron mobility were off by a factor of
> > five. Maybe
> that problem has been fixed, or maybe it's only necessary to get
> > the sign
> of an effect correct (if you strain the lattice, the electron mobility
> >
> improves--only, as Intel discovered, to its dismay, not as much as they had
>
> > hoped). That you regard these gigantic calculations as a necessary tool
> of your
> > trade and that you are passionate about it is clear. That I have
> exhausted the
> > entire extent of my detailed knowledge of the subject is
> also clear. That's not
> > to say that my understanding of the problem
> couldn't be improved, only, not in
> > the context of a discussion like the
> current one. There's also a lot of
> > gigantic cluster time being used to
> do computer animation and to do inverse
> > scattering for oil exploration,
> and, at one time, someone in a position to know
> > said that he knew of
> commercial clusters that had no interest in being on the
> > Top 500 list but
> that would have blown it away. The difference is that those
> > clusters are
> being funded with private risk capital, albeit with tax subsidies
> >
> probably in both cases, and the decision to build them was clearly not driven
> by
> > egos and academic/national lab politics.
> >
>
> There are physically
> measurable quantities in some solid state problems that can be calculated to a
> high degree of precision. But 5 digits is not necessary for the results to be
> useful and 2 or 3 digits is possible for a wide range of problems. DFT has even
> been successful in predicting some physical phenomena before they were
> experimentally observed which is a pretty good test of the validity of a
> particular methodology.
>
> > > And there are DFT methods that
> > scale
> well
> > > computationally on supercomputers. A bigger limitation is
> that
> > most DFT methods
> > > exhibit O(N^3) or worse scaling with the
> number of atoms
> > being simulated which
> > > limits things to a few
> thousand atoms on the
> > current generation of
> > > supercomputers.
> To study larger systems (and there
> > are plenty of commercial and
> >
> > scientific reasons to want to do so) will
> > require new
> algorithms.
> > >
> > Well, now there are two of you and a paper who
>
> > appear to believe in perpetual motion.
> >
>
> I not sure what point
> you're trying to make here. DFT is based on first principles and has a very good
> track record but it's computationally very expensive. You can do a lot of useful
> work with it on systems that range up to a few thousand atoms but with O(N^3)
> scaling you can easily use up any feasible increase in computer power without
> extending the size range you can model very far. Hence the efforts to improve
> the algorithmic scaling. It's not a solved problem yet but it's not perpetual
> motion.
>
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
New article: Intel's Near-Threshold ComputingDavid Kanter2012/09/18 11:26 AM
  Higher SRAM voltage and shared L1Paul A. Clayton2012/09/18 01:38 PM
    Higher SRAM voltage and shared L1David Kanter2012/09/18 04:20 PM
      Higher SRAM voltage and shared L1Eric2012/09/20 09:44 AM
        Higher SRAM voltage and shared L1David Kanter2012/09/20 11:24 AM
      Yes, that kind of asynchronousPaul A. Clayton2012/09/20 01:53 PM
    Higher SRAM voltage and shared L1somebody2012/09/19 08:27 AM
      So micro-turboboost is doubly impracticalPaul A. Clayton2012/09/20 01:53 PM
  Big littleDoug S2012/09/18 02:04 PM
    Big littleDavid Kanter2012/09/18 03:05 PM
    Big littleRicardo B2012/09/19 03:06 AM
  New article: Intel's Near-Threshold Computingdefderdar2012/09/18 08:39 PM
    New article: Intel's Near-Threshold Computingtarlinian2012/09/19 07:32 AM
      New article: Intel's Near-Threshold ComputingDavid Kanter2012/09/19 09:44 AM
  New article: Intel's Near-Threshold ComputingMark Christiansen2012/09/19 10:31 AM
    New article: Intel's Near-Threshold ComputingChris Brodersen2012/09/19 11:54 AM
  New article: Intel's Near-Threshold ComputingEric2012/09/20 09:47 AM
  Latency and HPC WorkloadsRobert Myers2012/10/03 09:52 AM
    Latency and HPC Workloadsanon2012/10/03 05:50 PM
      Latency and HPC WorkloadsRobert Myers2012/10/04 09:24 AM
        Latency and HPC WorkloadsSHK2012/10/08 04:42 AM
          Latency and HPC WorkloadsMichael S2012/10/08 12:59 PM
            Latency and HPC WorkloadsSHK2012/10/08 01:42 PM
              Latency and HPC WorkloadsMichael S2012/10/08 04:12 PM
                Latency and HPC Workloadsforestlaughing2012/10/15 07:41 AM
                  The original context was Micron RLDRAM (NT)Michael S2012/10/15 07:55 AM
                    The original context was Micron RLDRAMforestlaughing2012/10/15 09:21 AM
              Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?Kevin G2012/10/09 08:48 AM
                Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?Michael S2012/10/09 09:33 AM
                  Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?SHK2012/10/09 11:55 AM
                    Why not SRAM? - CapacityRohit2012/10/09 08:13 PM
                  Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?Kevin G2012/10/09 02:04 PM
                    Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?Michael S2012/10/09 03:52 PM
                      Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?Robert Myers2012/10/10 09:11 AM
                        Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?forestlaughing2012/10/15 07:02 AM
                          Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?Robert Myers2012/10/15 08:04 AM
                            Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?forestlaughing2012/10/16 08:13 AM
                          Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?SHK2012/10/16 07:12 AM
                    Latency and HPC Workloads - Why not SRAM?slacker2012/10/11 12:35 PM
                      SRAM leakageDavid Kanter2012/10/11 02:00 PM
          Latency and HPC Workloadsforestlaughing2012/10/15 07:57 AM
            Latency and HPC WorkloadsRobert Myers2012/10/16 06:28 AM
              Latency and HPC WorkloadsMichael S2012/10/16 06:35 AM
              Latency and HPC Workloadsanon2012/10/16 07:17 AM
                Latency and HPC WorkloadsRobert Myers2012/10/16 08:56 AM
                  Supercomputer variant of Kahan quotePaul A. Clayton2012/10/16 10:09 AM
                    Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/17 12:17 AM
                      Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/17 03:34 AM
                        Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/17 04:12 AM
                          Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/17 01:38 PM
                            Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/17 04:24 PM
                              Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/17 04:45 PM
                                Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/17 04:58 PM
                                Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/17 04:58 PM
                                  Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/17 06:14 PM
                                    Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/17 07:36 PM
                                      Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/18 08:47 AM
                                        Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/19 01:34 AM
                                          Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/19 03:47 AM
                                          Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/19 02:14 PM
                        Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteMichael S2012/10/17 05:56 PM
                          Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/17 08:02 PM
                            Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/18 12:29 PM
                              Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/19 01:27 AM
                                Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/19 06:24 AM
                                  Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/19 07:00 AM
                                    Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/19 08:28 AM
                                      Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteanon2012/10/19 09:27 AM
                              Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteforestlaughing2012/10/19 09:26 AM
                                Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/19 06:04 PM
                                  Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteEmil Briggs2012/10/20 03:52 AM
                                    Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/20 06:51 AM
                                      Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteEmil Briggs2012/10/20 07:33 AM
                                        Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteEmil Briggs2012/10/20 07:34 AM
                                          Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/20 08:35 AM
                                            Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteEmil Briggs2012/10/20 09:04 AM
                                              Supercomputer variant of Kahan quoteRobert Myers2012/10/20 10:23 AM
                  Latency and HPC Workloadsanon2012/10/16 05:48 PM
                    Latency and HPC Workloadsforestlaughing2012/10/19 10:43 AM
              Latency and HPC Workloadsforestlaughing2012/10/19 08:38 AM
                Latency and HPC WorkloadsRobert Myers2012/10/19 10:40 AM
                Potential false economics in researchPaul A. Clayton2012/10/19 11:54 AM
                  Potential false economics in researchVincent Diepeveen2012/10/20 07:59 AM
                  Potential false economics in researchforestlaughing2012/10/23 09:56 AM
                    Potential false economics in researchRobert Myers2012/10/23 06:16 PM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell green?