NVIDIA Ships First Volta-based DGX Systems

>>62304466
>Xeon
>GPU compute rack
That's not how you do it, Jensen.
Anyway looks bretty decent and dense, despite being 3U.

>>62304515
It's still using broadlels as well. Not even nvidia is going to fall for the xeon scalable meme. But there does seems to be some pcie gimping going on somewhere, those infiniband ports each want 16lanes afaik and pcie switches don't magic bandwidth from anywhere.

>>62304689
I was implying EBYNs.

File: DGX1Parts.jpg (236KB, 2232x840px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 2232x840px

>>62304699
Despite being very correct they're hardly available either. This looks like it's using the same platform as the second generation pascal DGX with volta swapped out instead. I'd even forgotten the cpus are on a daugherboard in this thing.

The last dgx had a refresh so there's a chance the next one could use epyc, I have no doubt there are other vendors who are planning epyc+volta parts as well.

>>62304807
Right now the only GPU compute rack with EBYN is P47 one from inventec.
And it uses MI25, i.e. it's useless.

>>62304466
>$150,000
I'll take twenty!

>>62304846
>And it uses MI25, i.e. it's useless.
[Citation Needed]

>>62304889
Who the fuck uses Radeon in ML?
Literally nothing works with it.

Why would you want Xeon or Epyc when Nvidia supports POWER9 and even supports NVLink between the host and devices with POWER but not x86?

>>62306106
X86 compatibility

>>62306846
What exactly would you need x86 compatibility for? POWER9 can run little-endian, which is what you need anyway for nvidia. Do you mean for deploying other people's software?

>>62306915
if you care about performance you probably have a significant amount of x86-specific SIMD code

>>62306915
Okay even if you're not running binary-only software that can only run on x86, you still probably want x86. x86 compilers get by far the most attention and development work. You're much less likely to encounter bugs either in your program, or in the compiler, with x86. There's a bigger ecosystem with x86. More people make x86 machines, peripherals, etc. And if you're the admin whose job it is to keep the thing running, you'd much rather have all your servers be one architecture if you can help it, because running a mixed environment is more complexity, more chances for things to go wrong. This is before any issues of the price of the things.

I know x86 is inelegant and a lot of people (on this board and elsewhere) want some other architecture, any other architecture, to come along and dethrone it, because it offends their sensibilities so much. But face it, x86 won.

>>62307321
i thought running x86 OS will have hardware limitations.
like ram and even disk space.
then again i don't know shit about computers.

I think you're confusing 32-bit, which people called "x86" with 64-bit, which people call "x64"

>>62307971
x86-64 is still x86

>>62307971
>i thought running x86 OS will have hardware limitations.
>like ram and even disk space.
You thought incorrectly, but that's okay, you learned something new today!