Well, good morning. Thank you very much for the nice introduction
It is my pleasure and my honor to introduce some of the highlights of the new list like I have done the last couple of years
In this venue and of course the big news this time is the new number one
Which is the K computer
Or I can in Japan built by Fujitsu it made a quite impressive entry in the top 500
It is a system built by Fujitsu and the spark
Architecture is only the architecture of the chip the actual chip is designed and manufactured by Fujitsu
They built a high performance version of the spark course and the architecture breaks with a couple of trends
Which we have seen in the last couple of years in high performance computing and in the top 500
The first thing you might notice is that is it is a traditional architecture in the sense that it does not use any accelerators
It simply uses the spark course to achieve its performance. So that's difference from
Compared to for instance the number two or the number four of which both use Nvidia
Accelerators to achieve their performance. So it is a traditional architecture
It is a single socket node that also is different from a lot of the systems in the top 500
Each each of these sockets has a chip with eight cores and each of these cores actually does eight floating point
Eight floating point calculations per cycle. So that's also different in
especially from other
spark-based systems on the list
It has a custom interconnect, which is a six-dimensional mesh and torus interconnect
It's also different it breaks with a couple of tens has a very high number of cores
The next largest system on the top 500 in terms of course is actually a blue chain P system here in Germany in
With about just a little more than half of the number of course 290,000 cores
It it turns is the competition by a factor of three and a half to the next and I believe as check
Calculated takes about five the next five larger systems to sum up on the same peak performance
It's also the number one in terms of power performance
But as Hans already mentioned even so that is the highest absolute power performance
It is actually the architecture with the second highest power efficiency
If you do divide each achieve performance by the power by the power consumption, so it is a very efficient architecture
The next four systems were on the top 500 for a six month ago
And they just moved down by one position the other two new
System in some sense are at number six and number seven both systems and yes
And both systems are actually upgrades to existing systems, so they were on the list before
Cl was in the top ten and avoided being kicked out by an upgrade from six core to eight core
Processors and by having more cores, so there are now above a pair of flops. They were below before
It's a system at Lawrence Los Alamos National Labs and showing in a collaboration with San Diego National Labs
the number seven system is
Also an upgrade to a previous system, but the previous play area system. I was not in the top ten
It was actually the number 11 on the last list
So they made their way back into the top 500 by upgrading with a second part of the SGI optics
It's a system at the NASA Ames Research Center Mountain View and in California
the
The other thing to note this time is the first time that the top ten only has petaflop systems according to the limpec benchmark
And that's all the ten systems. We have with a pair of flop, so we have ten petaflop systems now
The last system here is actually the roadrunner system
Which was the first petaflop system when it came out when it came out in in the final configuration
It is now the number ten just above a pair of flop
And it actually has the lowest or second to lowest one of the lowest power consumptions
on this list
some of the new systems which have a
Higher performance do actually consume less powers, but on average power consumption in this list has gone up at this level
So
The top ten with three changes as spectacular as the number one change is
Is actually with three changes is not that exciting in terms of how how much news we have and the question then is how much news?
Do we have in the top 500 overall and one measure we look at?
Traditionally is what is the number of systems which we kick off on the last list?
because they no no no longer make the new cutoff and
The number recovered to 238, which is a slightly above average
But it had it had hit a record low two years two lists ago
Just a year ago
So we are seeing more and more turnover in the top 500 again
And we seem to be going through some cycles here, and I come back to that later
Another measure we look at to see how dynamic the list is overall is is simply the how much are the average?
performance in the list has changed from months from
Additionally additional in this case actually from year to year and again after hitting a record record low
increase in performance a year ago the the increase in performance the rate at which we add
Compute capabilities worldwide has increased again, and now we are again above the red line
Which is Moore's law?
Traditionally we have always been above Moore's law on average, and we are heading back in the average territory
So we are coming out of that slot slump in this slide again
This is one of the traditional slides which we have to show every year. This is on a logarithmic scale
the performance development of the last system in the list the first system in the list and of all 500 systems and
What you see is of course the effect of Moore's law that you have an exponential growth
And it still continues the number 500 still continues
It's leveling off the last couple of editions a little but overall
We are still on track the entry level to the top 500 overall is now just above 40 teraflops
That's the minimum performance you need to achieve to be on this list
the number one performance is
8.16 petaflop and
You see the big jump up which occurred first with the Chinese system six months ago and now with the K computer
And that's probably going to increase at least for one more list when the K computer is going to reach its final size
It's not built out to its full size yet, so it will grow
We had similar jumps in the past one here was in the mid 90s
Askew had the first system which broke the teraflop barrier
Which sounds very low these days and which stayed on as number one for quite a while and the second big jump here noticeable is
Actually the earth simulator was the earth simulator
Which was a similar jump as the K computer. I'd had a similar or even higher
Advantage over its competition when it was fully built and released as the K computer has right now and the noticeable thing here
Of course is to notice that these two computer systems
They are not only installed in the same country Japan, but they're actually built by the same company by Fujitsu
So
If you project naively out our exponential growth rates
We we arrive at this slide where we go up to one exit flop
And we see the projection for the number one system to hit that exit flop
Is still around the end of the decade about 2019?
That's what we have seen for a while and as I already said overall
Exponential growth is fine
There's a little little slowdown here at the end of the top 500
but we have to see if that is really a trend or if it's just an effect of the economic situation and
This slowdown in turnover, which we have seen the last two years
Now what what are the changes we see in the different categories if we look into the different classification of computer systems
So the first thing we always do or one of the first things we always do is look at the geographic distribution
And this is a set of slides where we look at the geographic distribution
Not by number of systems, but actually by how much performance is installed in a certain country
So this is the total installed performance in teraflops
In the United States and what you see is a exponential growth
Which seem to have leveled off a little bit the last couple of years, but that's to be seen if that's
temporary or permanent
the European share
is pretty much parallel which on a
Graph like that is actually always a little bit surprising and the big
Surprise this time or the big new thing this time
Of course is Japan after having fallen after having caught up with the European Union with the earth simulator
And having trailed off a little bit afterwards now with the K computer and also with that subami to computer six months ago
They're making big progress in terms of the overall performance installed and they have caught up with the European share again
the big news and
Six months ago or even a year ago was of course what happens in a country not too far from there and that is China
China used to be virtually absent from the top 500 in the in the 1990s and has made a big in the road has closed
one and a half orders of magnitude gap
To Japan and to the European Union
actually was ahead of Japan for a little while it's now trailing behind and
Hasn't quite increased as much as before but they have two systems in the top ten
So there they have quite a bit in installed in terms of overall performance as well as a number of systems
This is the rest of the world the rest of the world doesn't follow the Chinese model
It's follows pretty much the European or the American model. So China is really the exception here
If we look at a different category, we can look for instance at the companies
Which companies are building these systems and by number of systems you see that IBM?
Is again in the lead in terms of number of systems with about 43% of the systems built by IBM
Ahead of HP about 31% and then followed by companies which by large are focusing more on the research market
IBM and HP have traditionally for almost a decade
Sold a lot of systems in the commercial markets
So their numbers are high because they have a lot of commercial customers about most of the other companies
Focus on our research and academic sites. So there are absolute numbers all over
Third company by numbers is actually crazy at this time 29 systems
SGI 19 Dell
Oracle which used to be some bill Fujitsu and the rest of the world
We can look at the same statistic for a smaller sub sample
I already said that the very high-end is in a way different the top 50 systems
Represent the different slice of the market then the top 500 overall
The main difference being that there are very few or no very few in this case a commercial industrial customers
Which are in the top 50?
So if you just focus on the top 50 you get a representation of what goes on in the government research space and academic sites
So what you see here is that in in the space of very big systems top 50 and a research institution
Craig is actually the leading company with 17 systems ahead of IBM SGI and the other companies
So you have a quite a noticeable difference in terms of your statistics
Depending on how large a system you look at
now
We have a lot of data in the top 500 and there are different
Methods to visualize data one way to deal with large data sets visualize large data sets are so-called three maps
So what I show here is a three map a simple version of a three map
What it shows you is each of these little squares here represents the performance of a single computer on the top 500
So you have a total of about 500 of these little rectangles and they have different sizes according to the performance
I grouped them and colored them by the manufacturer of the system
so what you see here is all the Fujitsu systems and
you notice that there is one system which is much larger than the other Fujitsu system and
accounts for most of the performance installed by from Fujitsu, that's of course the K computer and
To make it a little easier to find your way around
I actually tried to fit in the names of these computers about with 500 names that gets a little
Overcrowded easily. So I picked just the top 50. So what you see here now is actually the names. Here's K computer
That's a top 50 system and that's the only system Fujitsu has in the top 50
Are you see K has a quite a quite a large number of top 50 systems
That's because they are the leader in the top top 50. They have 17 systems in that category. They don't sell very small systems
IBM has a couple of top 50 systems and this one here where the label is cut off is actually a new one
It's a power 7 system a power 7 7 5 system and that I point that out because that is the number 50 system
So any square smaller than this type of square is not going to have a label and is not in the top 50
The the other thing you see is of course the beer there is no no company no big company up down to April
Which does not have a top 50 system. So if you want to have a big entry in the top 500 and this is
Basically sorted or wait by performance. You have to have big big big systems
So
When we have when we take this coloring and here's the legend for the five main companies this time around
When you when you take a graph like that, of course, you can sort it or color it different ways
So I'm going to show this and a similar slide in different colorings
What I'm going to do now is I'm going to keep my colors for my companies
But instead of grouping them by manufacturer, I'm just going to show the list sorted by size
So same colors, but different sorting looks like this now
This basically shows the number one system K computer with its performance a very large
Tianyi 1a the Chinese system followed by chagua which received the award today
nebula second Chinese system subami to second Japanese system as yellow players hope it terror terror 100 the number 9
System, which is the largest one in Europe and you see it colored by manufacturer
So if you look at that visually you get a couple of impressions and the ones I got the ones I saw is
First of all red is on top
It's not so much on the bottom and that's clear because the red is all the systems from cray cray tries to sell big systems
They sell the research sites that tend to be on top. The second
The second thing I noticed is that the top has many more colors than the bottom
Overall and the reason for that is at the top you have small companies which sell one or two very large systems
Such as Fujitsu such as SGI player is such as build with the terror 100
IBM with road honor and others while at the bottom
You mostly have two colors and the two colors at the bottom is blue for IBM and the light green for HP
So the bottom of the list is pretty much split by IBM and HP with a few other colors
While the top of the list is where really all the companies try to play in the Serena
The other thing you notice is the names break off here, which is pretty much or visually pretty much in the middle of the performance
overall and that has been the case since the beginning of the top 500 that it takes about 40 to 50 systems to
Accumulate half of the aggregate aggregate performance in the top 500 and you can see that actually visually again in this slide
Now if I look briefly in a more traditional way at countries again
I already said United States is clearly leading China by number of systems has actually
Twice as many systems as the biggest European countries 62 systems are followed by Germany UK Japan and then France
That's the biggest
companies and it's very traditional the main difference which we have seen over the last couple of years is really if I focus on the
Asian countries the development in China with a steep rise in the number of installed
Systems as well as in the install performance during the last one or two years
So that's a big jump
Japan doesn't make nearly a big jump in this statistic because it counts systems. I don't wait by performance
It's just a number of systems
In Europe are the last couple of years. We have a steady
Triumvirate from Germany UK and France they trade places
But in overall they're about the same in terms of installed a number of systems and performance on not that much changes here
And a lot of smaller players one exception
I would like to make here is that
Recently actually the number of systems installed in Russia has been growing steadily still low at 6%
But it has been growing for the last two or three years and one of the big companies benefiting from that or active
There is obviously tea platforms
So I'm coming back to a tree map
I tried I tried a second way to look at the data set overall and what I did now is I
Sorted my rectangles by where these systems are installed
So the green ones here now all the systems installed in the United States
Purpose Japan China Germany France UK Russia South Korea Canada, Sweden, Italy
Australia and so on so you see
Perform the install performance
Japan is just the head of China, but China is clearly nowadays ahead of the European countries. They're really exchanged
You see the big impact of the K computer, but the impact is not quite as big as
As it was in terms of
Number of systems
You see again the the large sizes you see that
All of these countries have large systems
Otherwise there wouldn't be up there the first one of which doesn't show up in the top 50 is actually Italy
and
One thing I like to do now is I actually like to go and color my
Rectangles differently again. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna keep the placement and the order and the grouping
It's gonna be by geographic by countries by
Geography, but I'm gonna color them by manufacturer. So you're gonna see which manufacturer sells in which country
So if I do that and I take my old colors here
You notice a couple of things first thing if you look at the United States, there is a lot of right up there
Okay, great is a very American company and they sell the big systems in the US
And that's why that slice is very red red is virtually missing or is missing nowadays in Japan
There are a lot of countries which don't have read some countries have a lot some have us a little UK
South Korea, Sweden and so on so
In terms of geography, it's actually a very
Compartmentalized it's very different. It's not like
Big the big companies are selling the same fraction in all the countries. It really depends a lot on the countries on
We are individual companies are selling the other thing which is a little harder to see or notice
Because I have so many colors so many manufacturers here is that in each of these
Geographic locations, it's actually a local company which tends to sell very big systems and the United States, of course, it's
cray, it's IBM and it's
Oracle Sun
This is SGI. That's all American companies. If I look into Japan, I have Fujitsu
I have NEC and I have Hitachi systems and then I at the lower end
HP and IBM systems, but the big systems in Japan are from Japanese companies
The big system in China is either built in collaboration
With the install and installation site or by dawning
So again, I have the local companies building the big systems and after that I have a lot of IBM and a few HP systems
But the big systems are built by local companies
Germany doesn't really have its own supercomputing companies. So that's the exception to the rule
France the biggest system is terra, which is built
Again, a French company. UK doesn't have its own industry. So it's actually grey and IBM and others
Russia, it's T platform on the monos of as a very impressive
GPU system in Russia and after that
We don't really have local companies anymore after that. It's a mixture of colors
So the big countries and that has been actually a recent trend during the last five years
They have switched away from this model that all the big computer systems are coming from DS
They have switched more and more to a model that they try to actually encourage local companies and local industry. I
Do one more coloring and in this case, I take the same order as in the last slide
Not that's not right. I take this the ordering by company IBM, Cray, Fujitsu and so on
But I color by what type of processor these systems are using
So what I see here is with one glance
There's a lot of light blue which are the Intel processors and most companies are using Intel processors
Big exception is Cray, which is all purple and that's AMD chips
So you see the technology base while HP
IBM to a lesser degree and some of the other companies and they have products which use Intel their products which use AMD chips
So they do both
IBM has these light green colors
That's the power architecture and they use that architecture mostly at the high end for the very big systems
That's the blue chain systems and to a lesser degree. That's the power seven based systems
But IBM is using at the very high end and the blue chain their own processes. Otherwise mostly
Intel processors Fujitsu of course using their variation of the spark
processor or Intel processors again, and that's about it
That's that's that's the distribution
That's the distribution between companies and as you can see not all companies are created equal
And there's still a difference in terms of what underlying technology they are using
If I drill down a little more into
Processors, I see a long list of processes and there is actually an other slice that list is really very long
I see at the top this time. There is a West near process an Intel processor
That's different from six month ago or a year ago
I did difference here being that best near is the six core version of the Intel
Oxygen chip while at the last list and the number one was still a four four core our chip
So we are switching from four core to six core chips that change has happened rapidly
The number two is a four core chip by number of systems half as many systems using four core this type of focus
Chip compared to the west here and then you go around if you do the same pie
And way that in the segments by performance and stuff systems, of course, you get a different picture
You see again Westmere the Westmere chip. They are
Used they are very powerful. They're used in large computer systems
Then you actually see the Fujitsu spark chip
Which is 14% which is pretty much the performance share of the K computer and it goes down
So you see a little more? What are the architectures?
What are the chips which are still or which are currently used in very big systems?
For instance the optron 12 core systems, which are used in crater are featured very high
And so we can throw down in a little more detail here
So if I take one step back and just abstract all these minute details and just look at how many cores I have per socket
I see the following development for the last nine years. I see
Single processors are gone our dual core chips are almost gone. Not quite quad core chips have gone down substantially and
The six core chips are actually rising
Again together with all the chips which are using more than six cores
The the time lag between these general generations
Generational changes is not equal
We don't have a lot of data points. We only have seen two of those changes
so we don't know if this is a reflection of how
Chip industry is innovating in terms of processor architecture
Or if it was an artificially laid you do the economic situation. It could be either
If I look in a little more detail on what happens at the end
Or where I have a lot of course in my chips. I can break this out and I see nowadays we have
We have believe still one or two
Systems with a single core sockets. We have two core four core, which is a
Majority six core systems and then we go down we have eight nine ten twelve and sixteen cores
One system. I actually like to point out is the slice with one blue line
Which is tank or system? That's a very new
edition of the Intel West me a process
It's the new version and the LRC in Munich in Germany is actually
Procuring a very large petaflop system based on their architecture, and they got their first shipment
So we have we have two of these systems already in the list
That's very impressive new technology
Now if you look at these core counts and the processor lists, I presented a big question
We get the last couple of years is always the question. So what about Nvidia? What about ATI? What about these?
Accelerators, what's happening there?
So what I did is I broke these accelerators out and the reason that I had to do it and present it in a separate slide is
Accelerators are a little bit of a challenge to us in how we count systems how we count cores and how we present
Results because the system typically has a main processor on Intel or an AMD processor as well as an accelerator
So which one do we actually count in our statistics?
Is it the Intel process is it the Nvidia processor and so on and so forth so to get around that?
I just count them separately and I tried to count all the recent accelerators and by recent
I mean since 2000 and we see it since to June 2006. We have
Accelerated systems the first one were clear speed based pros clear speed based
Accelerators are used in a couple of systems over the years. They actually disappeared this time
There is no system on the list anymore with clear speed processors
And all the others are cheap more traditional cheap you based ones
Some people will argue that the IBM power. Excel is not a cheap you a test its roots there
But it's different
It was the first accelerator was really used widely and is still in a fair number of systems on the list
About the active one during the last one and a half years are the Nvidia accelerators the number of system has grown
But you have to keep the scale here in mind the scale here is 25 as we have about 12
Nvidia accelerated systems on the list which overall is still very low
So the maturity of the system the heat the vast majority of the system in the top 500 is not accelerated
We only have about three and a half four percent of the systems which are accelerated at this point
If you do the same statistics by performance of the share actually goes up
We have about 14 percent of the performance in the list delivered by accelerators
They tend to be used in larger systems and they tend to deliver a good limpek performance
But overall it's it's not a dominant impact on the list
But you see the very steep impact of the Nvidia CPUs in this little slice of the overall market in this
slide
Now if you look a little bit more into technologies, there are two more aspects
I want to look at one is the efficiency on the limpek benchmark
The first thing to notice here is this is the efficiency on the limpek benchmark
Across the rank where a system is from the leading system to the last system in the top 500
One thing to point out here is that first bullet here?
That's the K computer has a limpek efficiency of 93% that is very high for a non vector system
That's pretty much as high as it gets there is one vector system
I believe here which is higher and another system which I don't recall which one it is
But 93% are on a system of that size while it is in installation. That is a very impressive performance
Second thing you notice visually you can cluster these efficiencies and the first feature which pops out
Of course is this big band
Of lower performing systems about 50% and as I have said in the past
These are systems which are connected with gigabit Ethernet technology
They don't achieve the same performance on the limpek benchmark. The gigabit Ethernet is not
It doesn't allow them to perform at the same level as in Fini band systems, which are up in the red cloud in this place
The second feature you notice is this scatter of red down here
And I colored here in green are the cheap you or the accelerated systems in the top 500
so in green you see the efficiency of the cheap you based systems as well as the
the power cell the Excel systems IBM's Excel systems and you see
Even so these systems at least at the high end. They do have in Fini band. They do have a high performance network
They still don't reach the same a level of efficiency as traditional architectures
And the reason for that is the current coprocessor model of GPU acceleration and the problems which come with that
however
seeing some of the
triangles up here in the 80% range that already gives you an indication that this might be a
More of a startup problem a more of a temporary feature and not necessarily a fundamental
Problem with this type of architectures, but there is a problem and we have to address it in over commit
So that's limpek efficiency and now to power consumption
We have been tracking power consumption for a couple of years
And the first thing I always like to show is actually the absolute power levels for the systems for which we have measurements
So what you see here is actual measured performance measured power consumption of these systems
We have numbers for those which we believe in for 275 systems. That's about a little more than 55 percent 55 percent
We don't have it for all 500
But you see there is very few very large systems power consumption. There's about
29 systems I believe which uses more than one megawatt on the limpek benchmark
That number even though it is still low that number has been constantly growing during the last couple of years
And I don't think it's a sampling issue
I think it is actually a reflection of the fact that power consumption is growing
We have a new number one in terms of power consumption
That's also the K computer and that's not driven by being inefficient on the contrary. That's simply driven by its size
It's just a very large computer
Now if you look at these power levels
I do averages and I try to do the same or similar trends as I do with the regular top 500
I look at the average power consumption of a top 10 system top 50 system or top 500 system
So what you see is the average power consumption here on a scale of megawatts is slowly going up for the average top 500 system
It's more rapidly increasing for a top 50 system and even more rapidly again for a top 10 system
So I don't have at this point a good real good explanation
Why the growth rates on these three lines are not the same?
While the top 10 system increases so much faster in power consumption than the average system
But the data seem to be confirming it very clearly for a couple of editions so far
So power consumption is really growing that I think that much is clear
It's not quite clear what the appropriate rate is and why the rate depends on the size of the system
But it is it is growing
the power the second aspect to that a
Question of course is how efficient are these systems?
Is it simply that the sizes of the very large systems is growing so much more rapidly or is it that they're there that?
They are simply not efficient enough
So if I look at power efficiency
Which we define as the ratio of the power consumed of the limpec benchmark achieved divided by the power consumed
Here shown in gigaflops per kilowatt if you look at the average efficiency in these sub samples
We see the the good news is that the average efficiency on all levels and all positions of the top 500 is increasing
And here the curves are much more in agreement with each other than on the last slide
So it's not like the top 10 systems are not increasing in efficiency if anything
They're increasing their efficiency actually faster than the majority of the system
But they don't do it fast enough to really keep up with the growth in size
the other thing I want to do here, and that's going to be my last slide is
Instead of just showing averages. I actually like to show. What is the highest?
Efficient system on each of these lists, and if I do that I see I have to change my scale here quite dramatically
So what do you see here in the blue dots?
All the systems which had the highest power efficiency on the top 500 over these six or seven lists
I show you and what you see is the highest efficiency on the list is actually substantially higher than any of these averages
I was much closer at the beginning, and it's opening up. There is a gap
It also shows some grouping and that grouping is very the reason for that is very simple
It's basically two architectures which have had that number one spot
That was the cell chips a cell based chips IBM systems the first five lists
I show you and that was the blue chain cue prototypes the new prototype second prototype
The bridging who has an efficiency of over 2,000
Gigaflop per kilowatt which is quite impressive
It's way ahead of the field and the big question is of course does this type of technology really trickle down in the rest
Of the top 500 how long is it going to take is it going to influence the rate of improvement down here?
What happens and the good thing I think here is if I put down are the power efficiency of the new number one system?
The K computer it's at
820 something
Gigaflops per kilowatt it's the second most efficient architecture on the top 500
So the only system more efficient as the blue chain cue prototypes after that's already K computer. It is a
A very new system. I was told K has some sort of a double meaning in Japan
It stands for 10 to the 16, which is the performance goal of the final machine, but it also stands for a big gateway
It's like a big gateway into the computational science of the future
And I think it's if I look at this slide the help really is that it is a gateway and that it shows us
How we can improvement and make improvement to other systems in the top 500 overall. Thank you very much