• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Introduces the FirePro S10000 Server Graphics Card

Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
From the Press Release it looked to be aimed at Quadro.
Well, firstly, since there is no longer a FireStream product line, FirePro is now aimed at HPC (hence being unveiled at SC12) , as well as workstation. I'll let Dave Baumann (AMD Product Manager) make the distinction:
Secondly, there will be a GK110 Quadro. Bank it. There has never been a Tesla part that didn't have a Quadro counterpart
The market i think they are aiming for is SP users with no DP or minimal DP workload who want to save $ & space.
Which is what I meant by "niche". SP performance in a relatively compact form factor ( a desktop ATX specification) where noise and performance per watt are irrelevant. What make it even more niche is the fact that the 7970X2/7990 offer the same functionality for single precision and cost a fifth of the price.

Of course, if the application requires single precision performance, a K20 isn't required. A K10 (4.58TFlop/s FP32) would suffice, and even using Amazon's/Sabre PC inflated prices ($3200) the numbers are a lot closer than what you're painting.

S10000...$3599...5.91TFlop....1.64 GFlop/$....15.76 GFlop/watt
K10........$3200...4.85TFlop....1.51 GFlop/$....21.56 GFlop/watt
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
3,881 (0.89/day)
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
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
1,380 (0.29/day)
System Name Desktop
Processor Intel Xeon E5-1680v2
Motherboard ASUS Sabertooth X79
Cooling Intel AIO
Memory 8x4GB DDR3 1866MHz
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 970 SC
Storage Crucial MX500 1TB + 2x WD RE 4TB HDD
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Fractal Define XL Black
Audio Device(s) Schiit Modi Uber/Sony CDP-XA20ES/Pioneer CT-656>Sony TA-F630ESD>Sennheiser HD600
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Logitech G613
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
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 ;)
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
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.
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...
...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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
5,614 (1.07/day)
Location
San Diego, CA
System Name White Boy
Processor Core i7 3770k @4.6 Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P8Z77-I Deluxe
Cooling CORSAIR H100
Memory CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB @ 2177
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 680 CLASSIEFIED @ 1250 Core
Storage 2 Samsung 830 256 GB (Raid 0) 1 Hitachi 4 TB
Display(s) 1 Dell 30U11 30"
Case BIT FENIX Prodigy
Audio Device(s) none
Power Supply SeaSonic X750 Gold 750W Modular
Software Windows Pro 7 64 bit || Ubuntu 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores 2017 Unigine Heaven :: P37239 3D Mark Vantage
Seems nice, and prolly makes a joke of most CAD processes.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
4,876 (0.83/day)
Location
Joplin, Mo
System Name Ultrabeast GX2
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 4.0GHZ 24/7
Motherboard Gigabit P35-DS3L
Cooling Rosewill RX24, Dual Slot Vid, Fan control
Memory 2x1gb 1066mhz@850MHZ DDR2
Video Card(s) 9800GX2 @ 690/1040
Storage 750/250/250/200 all WD 7200
Display(s) 24" DCLCD 2ms 1200p
Case Apevia
Audio Device(s) 7.1 Digital on-board, 5.1 digital hooked up
Power Supply 700W RAIDMAXXX SLI
Software winXP Pro
Benchmark Scores 17749 3DM06
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.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
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?
 

KooKKiK

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
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.
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
40,435 (6.61/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
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

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.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
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.
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
 

KooKKiK

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
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 ???
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
40,435 (6.61/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
ya NV forced any Voltage Mods out (EVBot being the biggest example of this)

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 ???
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
11,654 (1.73/day)
System Name Compy 386
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard Asus
Cooling Air for now.....
Memory 64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Video Card(s) 7900XTX 310 Merc
Storage Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs and over 10TB spinning
Display(s) 56" Samsung 4K HDR
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Mouse Logitech MX518
Keyboard Razer
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
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
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
3,881 (0.89/day)
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.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
@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 ).

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
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
3,881 (0.89/day)
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
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
11,654 (1.73/day)
System Name Compy 386
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard Asus
Cooling Air for now.....
Memory 64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Video Card(s) 7900XTX 310 Merc
Storage Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs and over 10TB spinning
Display(s) 56" Samsung 4K HDR
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Mouse Logitech MX518
Keyboard Razer
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
@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.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
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.
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)
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
2,304 (0.52/day)
System Name msdos
Processor 8086
Motherboard mainboard
Cooling passive
Memory 640KB + 384KB extended
Video Card(s) EGA
Storage 5.25"
Display(s) 80x25
Case plastic
Audio Device(s) modchip
Power Supply 45 watts
Mouse serial
Keyboard yes
Software disk commander
Benchmark Scores still running
Quadro 6000 is like from July 2010 (about 2.5 years ago.)
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
3,881 (0.89/day)
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.

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:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
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?
I'd be unfortunate if you were implying that 225w is the limit and kind of hilarious
You mean:
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.
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
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
 
Last edited:

KooKKiK

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
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.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
3,881 (0.89/day)
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.

HumanSmoke said:
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, 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.

My point is 225w is an implied specification. Nothing stoping someone from putting a higher TDP card there other than dated hardware.

If you have links i'd like to see them tho, remember..

HumanSmoke said:

;)
 
Last edited:
Top