Monday, November 12th 2012

AMD Introduces the FirePro S10000 Server Graphics Card

AMD today launched the AMD FirePro S10000, the industry's most powerful server graphics card, designed for high-performance computing (HPC) workloads and graphics intensive applications.

The AMD FirePro S10000 is the first professional-grade card to exceed one teraFLOPS (TFLOPS) of double-precision floating-point performance, helping to ensure optimal efficiency for HPC calculations. It is also the first ultra high-end card that brings an unprecedented 5.91 TFLOPS of peak single-precision and 1.48 TFLOPS of double-precision floating-point calculations. This performance ensures the fastest possible data processing speeds for professionals working with large amounts of information. In addition to HPC, the FirePro S10000 is also ideal for virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) and workstation graphics deployments.


"The demands placed on servers by compute and graphics-intensive workloads continues to grow exponentially as professionals work with larger data sets to design and engineer new products and services," said David Cummings, senior director and general manager, Professional Graphics, AMD. "The AMD FirePro S10000, equipped with our Graphics Core Next Architecture, enables server graphics to play a dual role in providing both compute and graphics horsepower simultaneously. This is executed without compromising performance for users while helping reduce the total cost of ownership for IT managers."

Equipped with AMD next-generation Graphics Core Next Architecture, the FirePro S10000 brings high performance computing and visualization to a variety of disciplines such as finance, oil exploration, aeronautics, automotive design and engineering, geophysics, life sciences, medicine and defense. With dual GPUs at work, professionals can experience high throughput, low latency transfers allowing for quick compute of complex calculations requiring high accuracy.

Responding to IT Manager Needs
With two powerful GPUs in one dual-slot card, the FirePro S10000 enables high GPU density in the data center for VDI and helps increase overall processing performance. This makes it ideal for IT managers considering GPUs to sustain compute and facilitate graphics intensive workloads. Two on-board GPUs can help IT managers reap significant cost savings, replacing the need to purchase two single ultra-high-end graphics cards, and can help reduce total cost of ownership (TCO) due to lower power and cooling expenses.

Key Features of AMD FirePro S10000 Server Graphics

● Compute Performance: The AMD FirePro S10000 is the most powerful dual-GPU server graphics card ever created, delivering up to 1.3 times the single precision and up to 7.8 times peak double-precision floating-point performance of the competition's comparable dual-GPU product. It also boasts an unprecedented 1.48 TFLOPS of peak double-precision floating-point performance;
● Increased Performance-Per-Watt: The AMD FirePro S10000 delivers the highest peak double-precision performance-per-watt -- 3.94 gigaFLOPS -- up to 4.7 times more than the competition's comparable dual-GPU product;
● High Memory Bandwidth: Equipped with a 6GB GDDR5 frame buffer and a 384-bit interface, the AMD FirePro S10000 delivers up to 1.5 times the memory bandwidth of the comparable competing dual-GPU solution;
● DirectGMA Support: This feature removes CPU bandwidth and latency bottlenecks, optimizing communication between both GPUs. This also enables P2P data transfers between devices on the bus and the GPU, completely bypassing any need to traverse the host's main memory, utilize the CPU, or incur additional redundant transfers over PCI Express, resulting in high throughput low-latency transfers which allow for quick compute of complex calculations requiring high accuracy;
● OpenCL Support: OpenCL has become the compute programming language of choice among developers looking to take full advantage of the combined parallel processing capabilities of the FirePro S10000. This has accelerated computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided engineering (CAE), and media and entertainment (M&E) software, changing the way professionals work thanks to performance and functionality improvements.

Please visit AMD at SC12, booth #2019, to see the AMD FirePro S10000 power the latest in graphics technology.
Add your own comment

69 Comments on AMD Introduces the FirePro S10000 Server Graphics Card

#1
Xzibit
Like I said I think its a happy medium in the price for those with no or minimal DP workload.

S10000
(SP) 5.91 TFLOPS
(DP) 1.48 TFLOPS

K10
(SP) 4.58 TFLOPS
(DP) 0.19 TFLOPS
Posted on Reply
#2
repman244
by: HumanSmoke
Secondly, there will be a GK110 Quadro. Bank it. There has never been a Tesla part that didn't have a Quadro counterpart
But another thing to consider is that this is the first time Tesla uses a chip that wasn't in the consumer counterpart first, which can be an indication that it was built for only Tesla in mind.

But that's just my guessing, only time will tell what exactly is the chip meant for ;)
Posted on Reply
#3
HumanSmoke
by: Xzibit
Like I said I think its a happy medium in the price for those with no or minimal DP workload.
True enough to a degree, but then there is a reason that Nvidia command 80+% of the pro market- namely a better and more evolved professional driver and software environment. The toolkits offered by AMD aren't even close to that offered Tesla and Quadro (SceniX, CompleX and OptiX , or the CUDA SDK for example in relation to AMD's APP (ex-Stream) SDK). If hardware were the only criteria involved then AMD wouldn't be in the present situation regarding workstation and HPC GPGPU.
by: repman244
But another thing to consider is that this is the first time Tesla uses a chip that wasn't in the consumer counterpart first, which can be an indication that it was built for only Tesla in mind.
But that's just my guessing, only time will tell what exactly is the chip meant for ;)
Ryan Smith (Anandtech) seems to think a Quadro variant will eventuate (2nd page of the comments in the link below). Bearing in mind that ORNL were the lead customer and Nvidia seem to have their hands full satisfying Tesla demand...
Interestingly NVIDIA tells us that their yields are terrific – a statement backed up in their latest financial statement – so the problem NVIDIA is facing appears to be demand and allocation rather than manufacturing.
...it would seem that Nvidia are fulfilling HPC contracts first.
What would you expect Nvidia to do with the full 15SMX GPU's and other GPU's that are likely to fall outside of server power budget? It would seem you either fuse off perfectly good blocks for 15SMX parts, or throw away high leakage GPU's that could be utilized in a 250+W consumer card- and gain some PR into the bargain. Looking at Nvidia's past record, I'm pretty certain which course of action they would likely take.
Posted on Reply
#4
[H]@RD5TUFF
Seems nice, and prolly makes a joke of most CAD processes.
Posted on Reply
#5
KooKKiK
by: HumanSmoke
375W TDP for a server part!...that should go down well.


S10000...1.48 TFlops FP64 @ 375W
K20X......1.31 TFlops FP64 @ 235W

Must be one hell of a niche market
AMD and nVidia doesn't measure TDP in the same way.
Posted on Reply
#6
3870x2
by: repman244
Less than Radeon cards, drivers are optimized for OpenGL (CAD etc.), some also have ECC GDDR which has it's impact.
They are usually on par, performing identical to their desktop counterparts. While they have additional parts to them, the GPU that would run graphics is very much the same.

My NV 4600 (8800GTX) can max out CS:GO and play anything out there currently. These cards still need to have the ability to run DirectX applications just as well as OpenGL.
Posted on Reply
#7
HumanSmoke
by: KooKKiK
AMD and nVidia doesn't measure TDP in the same way.
Who knows? Looking at non-boost cards from both AMD and Nvidia shows that each tends to use around 80-85% of TDP in average workloads, and ~95% for peak workload. A quick look at W1zzards power consumption charts for graphics cards reviews should bear that out.

If the S10000 isn't specced for 375W use;
1. Why does AMD specify 375W board power for a part which has no capacity for boost/overclocking?, and,
2. The "S" series are all passively cooled with the exception of the S10000 which obviously requires three fans. Why would that be?
Posted on Reply
#8
KooKKiK
by: HumanSmoke
Who knows? Looking at non-boost cards from both AMD and Nvidia shows that each tends to use around 80-85% of TDP in average workloads, and ~95% for peak workload. A quick look at W1zzards power consumption charts for graphics cards reviews should bear that out.

If the S10000 isn't specced for 375W use;
1. Why does AMD specify 375W board power for a part which has no capacity for boost/overclocking?, and,
2. The "S" series are all passively cooled with the exception of the S10000 which obviously requires three fans. Why would that be?
No. You don't understand.

for AMD, TDP means the maximum power that can be delivered to graphic board.

but for nVidia, TDP means power that limited by their power limiter.


take a look at HD6970 that has 250W TDP VS GTX580 244W TDP

how on earth that 6970 has higher power consumption than the beast 580 ???


then look at the 'real' power consumption tested by Wizz





even the next gen graphics, 7870 ( 175W TDP ) VS 660 ( 130W TDP ) also follow this trend.




So direct TDP comparison between both companies doesn't make any sense at all.



PS. the 6990 also has 375W of TDP.
Posted on Reply
#9
eidairaman1
Its the same for Intel, there is no set standard of Measuring TDP, just like Monitor response times.

its just Denial some people are in

by: KooKKiK
No. You don't understand.

for AMD, TDP means the maximum power that can be delivered to graphic board.

but for nVidia, TDP means power that limited by their power limiter.


take a look at HD6970 that has 250W TDP VS GTX580 244W TDP

how on earth that 6970 has higher power consumption than the beast 580 ???


then look at the 'real' power consumption tested by Wizz

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6970/images/power_average.gif



even the next gen graphics, 7870 ( 175W TDP ) VS 660 ( 130W TDP ) also follow this trend.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_660/images/power_average.gif


So direct TDP comparison between both companies doesn't make any sense at all.



PS. the 6990 also has 375W of TDP.
Posted on Reply
#10
HumanSmoke
by: KooKKiK
No. You don't understand.
for AMD, TDP means the maximum power that can be delivered to graphic board.
but for nVidia, TDP means power that limited by their power limiter.
True enough, but if you're measuring TDP when there are a couple of caveats. Firstly, power consumption measurement should be maximum load. We are talking about GPGPU here, and these boards don't spend much (if any) time at rest or under light load. Average load for gaming would would represent a heavily underutilized co-processor.
Secondly, the Fermi cards are blatantly fudged by Nvidia for PR purposes. I wouldn't argue that Fermi cards TDP aren't based on wishful thinking, but the issue here is Tahiti (S10000) and Kepler (K20)
Your analogy would be HD 7970 ( 250W board power) vs GTX 680 (195W TDP) - although that an apples-to-apples comparison either since Tesla lacks the boost facility. Closer would be a non-boost Kepler vs non-boost Southern Islands. But since W1zz hasn't tested any stock cards, maybe check out another site...
GTX 650Ti (110W TDP).......191W system load (173.6% of TDP)
HD 7850 (130W board).....216W system load (166.2% of TDP)
Not a huge difference.
by: KooKKiK
PS. the 6990 also has 375W of TDP.
True. And it's maximum power draw is 404 watts.

TH put the single GPU FirePro W9000 through it's paces earlier (the S9000 is a passive version of the same card). The card is basically a HD 7970 non-GHz edition with 6GB VRAM and 225W board power. Under GPGPU the card clocked 275W
Posted on Reply
#11
KooKKiK
you can't have nVidia card at its maximum power because power limiter will cut off anything before reaching that point.


look at the Furmark test of GTX680 by Wizz




and compare to the gaming test




you see a difference between Furmark and gaming test of 680 compared to 7970 ???
Posted on Reply
#12
eidairaman1
ya NV forced any Voltage Mods out (EVBot being the biggest example of this)

by: KooKKiK
you can't have nVidia card at its maximum power because power limiter will cut off anything before reaching that point.


look at the Furmark test of GTX680 by Wizz

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_680_Limited_OC/images/power_maximum.gif


and compare to the gaming test

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_680_Limited_OC/images/power_average.gif


you see a difference between Furmark and gaming test of 680 compared to 7970 ???
Posted on Reply
#13
HumanSmoke
by: KooKKiK
you can't have nVidia card at its maximum power because power limiter will cut off anything before reaching that point.
Makes no difference. The point is performance/watt, or in the case of servers/HPC, staying within the rack specification (more often than not) of 225W per board.

If a power limiter affected stated performance you'd have an argument, but as the case stands, you are making excuses not a valid point. And just for the record, the gaming charts don't have a direct bearing on server/WS/HPC parts- as I mentioned before, you can't get a true apples-to-apples comparison between gaming and pro parts- all they can do is provide an inkling into the efficiency of the GPU. If you want to use a gaming environment argument, why don't you take it to a gaming card thread, because it is nonsensical to apply it to co-processors.

by: eidairaman1
ya NV forced any Voltage Mods out (EVBot being the biggest example of this)
Because volt modding is (of course) the first requirement for server co-processors [/sarcasm]
Take your bs to a gaming thread.
Posted on Reply
#14
Steevo
Its true, when the GCN is in use under full load like GPGPU it is hungry, no parts of the chip are powered down and the marching instructions fit in the caches meaning transistors are busy.

But thats also why they manage a huge score in most GPGPU applications. And compare the power efficiency per FLOP even if it draws a few extra watts....

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/15-GPGPU-Luxmark,2971.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/14-GPGPU-Bitmining,2970.htmlb
Posted on Reply
#15
Xzibit
by: HumanSmoke
Makes no difference. The point is performance/watt, or in the case of servers/HPC, staying within the rack specification (more often than not) of 225W per board.
Maybe I dont understand what your saying but 225w rack specification ?

How old is that PSU in there. Swap it for a new one with correct connections.
Posted on Reply
#16
HumanSmoke
@Steevo
Fix yo links.

True enough that Tahiti/GCN is optimized for GPGPU, but then GK104 is just the opposite....and if the S10000 were a desktop gaming card I certainly wouldn't disagree with the premise, but if server GPGPU is the point of the discussion- and it should be for this thread- shouldn't the comparison be between server parts? Seems a little pointless making a case for the S10000 using desktop cards running at higher clocks using desktop drivers, while comparing them to deliberately compute hobbled Nvidia counterparts.

Wouldn't a more apropos comparison be gained by testing server parts to server parts ?
(BTW: The W/S9000 is a Tahiti part (3.23TFlop), the Quadro 6000 is a Fermi GF100 (1.03TFlop) based on the GTX 470 ).

by: Steevo
But thats also why they manage a huge score in most GPGPU applications. And compare the power efficiency per FLOP even if it draws a few extra watts....
Single precision.......................................................Double precision
W/S9000.(225W)...3.23FTlop....14.36 GFlop/watt.......0.81 TFlop.....3.58 GFlop/watt
S10000...(375W)...5.91TFlop....15.76 GFlop/watt........1.48 TFlop....3.95 GFlop/watt
K10........(225W)...4.85TFlop....21.56 GFlop/watt........0.19 TFlop.... Negligable
K20........(225W)...3.52TFlop....15.64 GFlop/watt........1.17 TFlop.....5.20 GFlop/watt
K20X......(235W)...3.95TFlop....16.81 GFlop/watt........1.31 TFlop.....5.57 GFlop/sec

And, for all the hoo-hah regarding the S10000 powering the SANAM system to number two in the Green500 list, the placement still relies more upon the asymmetric setup of the computer. 420 S10000's vs 4800 Xeon E5-2650's
by: Xzibit
Maybe I dont understand what your saying but 225w rack specification ?
Servers and HPC racks in general are built around a 225W per board specification. Example HP , and from Anandtech...
K20X will be NVIDIA’s leading Tesla K20 product, offering the best performance at the highest power consumption (235W). K20 meanwhile will be cheaper, a bit slower, and perhaps most importantly lower power at 225W. On that note, despite the fact that the difference is all of 10W, 225W is a very important cutoff in the HPC space – many servers and chasses are designed around that being their maximum TDP for PCIe cards
for example. That is why pro co-processors and are invariably rated at 225 watts. Check the specifications for top tier FireStream, FirePro, Quadro and Tesla. All the top SKU's are geared for 225W power envelope.
Posted on Reply
#17
Xzibit
by: HumanSmoke

Servers and HPC racks in general are built around a 225W per board specification. Example HP , and from Anandtech...

for example. That is why pro co-processors and are invariably rated at 225 watts. Check the specifications for top tier FireStream, FirePro, Quadro and Tesla. All the top SKU's are geared for 225W power envelope.
Still dont get what your implying
Right-sized HP ProLiant power supplies from 460 Watts at 94% efficiency, 750 Watts at 94% efficiency, to 1200 Watts at 94% efficiency
Posted on Reply
#18
Steevo
by: HumanSmoke
@Steevo
Fix yo links.

True enough that Tahiti/GCN is optimized for GPGPU, but then GK104 is just the opposite....and if the S10000 were a desktop gaming card I certainly wouldn't disagree with the premise, but if server GPGPU is the point of the discussion- and it should be for this thread- shouldn't the comparison be between server parts? Seems a little pointless making a case for the S10000 using desktop cards running at higher clocks using desktop drivers, while comparing them to deliberately compute hobbled Nvidia counterparts.

Wouldn't a more apropos comparison be gained by testing server parts to server parts ?
(BTW: The W/S9000 is a Tahiti part (3.23TFlop), the Quadro 6000 is a Fermi GF100 (1.03TFlop) based on the GTX 470 ).


Single precision.......................................................Double precision
W/S9000.(225W)...3.23FTlop....14.36 GFlop/watt.......0.81 TFlop.....3.58 GFlop/watt
S10000...(375W)...5.91TFlop....15.76 GFlop/watt........1.48 TFlop....3.95 GFlop/watt
K10........(225W)...4.85TFlop....21.56 GFlop/watt........0.19 TFlop.... Negligable
K20........(225W)...3.52TFlop....15.64 GFlop/watt........1.17 TFlop.....5.20 GFlop/watt
K20X......(235W)...3.95TFlop....16.81 GFlop/watt........1.31 TFlop.....5.57 GFlop/sec

And, for all the hoo-hah regarding the S10000 powering the SANAM system to number two in the Green500 list, the placement still relies more upon the asymmetric setup of the computer. 420 S10000's vs 4800 Xeon E5-2650's

Servers and HPC racks in general are built around a 225W per board specification. Example HP , and from Anandtech...

for example. That is why pro co-processors and are invariably rated at 225 watts. Check the specifications for top tier FireStream, FirePro, Quadro and Tesla. All the top SKU's are geared for 225W power envelope.
http://m.tomshardware.com/reviews/firepro-w8000-w9000-benchmark,3265-7.html


Funny how much faster the Radeon is.
Posted on Reply
#19
HumanSmoke
by: Xzibit
Still dont get what your implying
Well that's rather unfortunate.
Most other people would realize that 225W input power means 225W heat dispersal requirement, as well as power requirement.
by: Steevo
http://m.tomshardware.com/reviews/firepro-w8000-w9000-benchmark,3265-7.html
Funny how much faster the Radeon is.
Wow! Tahiti's faster than a GTX 470 in LightWave, Ensight, SolidWorks, bitmining, Luxmark and CAPS viewer. Colour me surprised. I am truly shocked and stunned!
Isn't it more surprising that the latest generation AMD GPU isn't overly convincing against a two generations old Nvidia GTX 470 in AutoCAD 2013, May 2013 and Siemens freeform modelling?
BTW
You missed out the Maya benches in the same review...
and you missed out the Catia benches in the same review...
and you missed out the Pro/ENGINEER benches in the same review...
and you missed out the Siemens Visualization benches in the same test...

Then of course you've got AMD's forte- OpenCL - which is also a very mixed bunch. AMD is strong in Image processing, but the Video benches and general benchmarks are pretty much a wash. Shouldn't Tahiti be putting up better numbers against a GTX 470 than this?


Not to worry though, I bet the GK104 and GK110 based Tesla and Quadro will be shit at everything- and if they aren't, you can just look at the pages you like- just like the TH review.
(Better not look at the HotHardware review)
Posted on Reply
#20
xorbe
Quadro 6000 is like from July 2010 (about 2.5 years ago.)
Posted on Reply
#21
Xzibit
by: HumanSmoke
Well that's rather unfortunate.
Most other people would realize that 225W input power means 225W heat dispersal requirement, as well as power requirement.
I still dont get what you mean ?

Can you link me to the 225w specification. I've never seen it.

by: HumanSmoke
Servers and HPC racks in general are built around a 225W per board specification. Example HP , and from Anandtech...

for example. That is why pro co-processors and are invariably rated at 225 watts. Check the specifications for top tier FireStream, FirePro, Quadro and Tesla. All the top SKU's are geared for 225W power envelope.
I'd be unfortunate if you were implying that 225w is the limit and kind of halarious

Linking to SL390s G7 implying thats the standard is baffiling.
• 2U half width tray offer GPU density, offering up to 3 GPUs (up to 225 watt) in the equivalent space as a 1U server
• 4U half width tray offer GPU density, offering up to 8 GPUs (up to 225 watt) in the equivalent space as a 2U server
The (up to 225 watt) is configuration where the available PSUs options only provide for (2) 6-pin connecters per slot. Not the 225w your implying per board :laugh:

PCIe Gen 2 = 75w
(2) 6-pin = 150w (75w each)
Total = 225w
Not a Server Specification :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#22
HumanSmoke
by: Xzibit
I still dont get what you mean ?
What I mean, and Anand for that matter, is that server racks are more often than not optimized for 225W per PCIE unit, both for cooling, power usage, and cabling. What's so hard to understand?
by: Xzibit
I'd be unfortunate if you were implying that 225w is the limit and kind of hilarious
You mean:
by: HumanSmoke
Servers and HPC racks in general are built around a 225W per board specification
What the above sentence actually says is that server racks in general are designed with a 225W board in mind. How you think that translates into a PCI-SIG specification is beyond me, because if that were the case, the K20X (235W) and S10000 (375W) would exceed it. Moreover, do you really expect large server farms, supercomputing clusters and data centres to use ATX PSU's ? :shadedshu
So, yet another instance of were Xzibit's reading skills don't reach the mark.

Just to reiterate. Most racks are pretty standardized which is why most vendors limit themselves to a 225W add in board. The other thing to consider is upgrades of previous generation systems- a 225W swap out for a 225W board is relatively painless. A swap out for a higher TDP board may require more extensive work.
by: Xzibit
The (up to 225 watt) is configuration where the available PSUs options only provide for (2) 6-pin connecters per slot. Not the 225w your implying per board
Of course if I actually said anything like that...but I didn't. 225W is a general standard that server vendors have adopted- don't believe me, check Cisco, HP, Dell, Penguin or any other server manufacturer and see how many are 225W per add-in-board and how many are, say 300W PCI-SIG.

Of course I don't expect you to actually do this, since it require you to:
1. Be able to parse the information correctly, and
2. Require you to actually spend some time doing research, and
3. You'd give up as soon as you saw the number of vendors' models specced for 225W boards.

Given that you can't even work out basic information about a company or its ownership, I'm not confident you'll fare any better with a companies product line- so I'm not expecting anything else but some worthless trolling
by: xorbe
Quadro 6000 is like from July 2010 (about 2.5 years ago.)
Yep. GF100 has since been superseded by GF110, which in turn has been superseded by GK104/110
Posted on Reply
#23
KooKKiK
TDP doesn't stand for the 'REAL' power consumption.

and both companies do not measure TDP in the same way.


that is my point.

hope you understand.
Posted on Reply
#24
Xzibit
by: HumanSmoke
What I mean, and Anand for that matter, is that server racks are more often than not optimized for 225W per PCIE unit, both for cooling, power usage, and cabling. What's so hard to understand?

You mean:

What the above sentence actually says is that server racks in general are designed with a 225W board in mind. How you think that translates into a PCI-SIG specification is beyond me, because if that were the case, the K20X (235W) and S10000 (375W) would exceed it. Moreover, do you really expect large server farms, supercomputing clusters and data centres to use ATX PSU's ? :shadedshu
So, yet another instance of were Xzibit's reading skills don't reach the mark.
Hey, smarty pants all those cards still use 6-pin and/or 8-pin AuX connectors.

by: HumanSmoke

Just to reiterate. Most racks are pretty standardized which is why most vendors limit themselves to a 225W add in board. The other thing to consider is upgrades of previous generation systems- a 225W swap out for a 225W board is relatively painless. A swap out for a higher TDP board may require more extensive work.

Of course if I actually said anything like that...but I didn't. 225W is a general standard that server vendors have adopted- don't believe me
Verifiable numbers or STFU.

;)
Posted on Reply
#25
HumanSmoke
Nah, didn't think so.

by: Xzibit
Hey, smarty pants all those cards still use 6-pin and/or 8-pin AuX connectors.
Considering the PCI-SIG rates the PCI-E slot for a nominal 75W power delivery, where the hell else do you think the board draws its power from?

You think a SC cluster or data centre has ATX PSU's ??

Maybe you should watch this and point out where the PSU's are, or maybe tell these guys they're doing it wrong.
by: Xzibit
My point is 225w is an implied specification
Which is already what I've said...and much earlier than you did, so why the bleating? Oh, I know why,...you just need to troll.
by: Xzibit
Nothing stoping someone from putting a higher TDP card there other than dated hardware
Nothing at all, except possibly change the cooling and power cabling - and no I don't mean just the individual 6 and 8 pin PCI-E connectors. I mean the main power conduits from the cabinets to the power source. Then of course if a cabinet is being refitted for S10000 then you would have to re-cable all 42 racks in a cabinet for 2 x 8-pin instead of the nominal 6-pin + 8-pin at four cables per rack multiplied by the number of boards per rack, as well as the main power conduits...then of course you'd have to upgrade the cooling system -which for most big iron is water cooling and refrigeration.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment