There are a few reasons it wasn't. Number one is that AMD offered a huge discount on Frontier and El Capitan pricing. Nvidia also hasn't been willing to share information on future features because they are more worried about being copied in the commercial space than winning DOE contracts. But yeah, the DOE probably should have used Nvidia for at least one of the three exascale systems. But the timing due to the supposed "race to exascale" made it difficult. El Capitan is a specialized supercomputer running a specific set of code bases, though, and it's possible they really wanted the extra FP64 throughput that the AMD architecture gives them. Hopper is set up for comparatively more AI performance and less FP64 performance. Aurora was already contracted for (from Intel), and Frontier was promised by Cray and AMD earlier than it was eventually delivered, long before Hopper, let alone Grace, was set to be delivered (and the US wanted to be "first to exascale", which they weren't, anyway, with the delays to Frontier and Aurora and which never really mattered because the Chinese decided not to list their machines for whatever reason. Also, I believe one thing the DOE really wanted for Frontier was coherency between the CPUs and GPUs, which couldn't be provided with an Nvidia GPU after IBM dropped out of the bidding and before Grace was available.
That's poor logic. There's a reason why Nvidia is a $1 trillion company now. Their hardware is irreplaceable and simply better than AMD and Intel's.
Just leave it to the government for wasting money on AMD hardware. In the business world, where performance/cost/utility actually matter, Nvidia is picked over and over again.
The performance numbers for the MI300A haven't been disclosed yet you know that the Nvidia product is better?
Nvidia is chosen because of their software. However, this system is written with custom code so it doesn't matter. AMD's performance is probably compatible at a lower price.
These government contracts are meant to help businesses to compete so that we don't have monopolies that result in overpriced goods with little innovation.
AMD hardware is very capable, but what alway has and still does hold them back is software and complete package. Nvidia for years built very effective CUDA and cuDNN libraries, SDKs and other software. Add that to complete systems like DGX and it makes a lot of sense for businesses to buy from nvidia - as a business you want something that is closest as can be to be doing work for you. You don't want to buy something that you need to create the entire software stack for it. As a government entity depending on what they do it might not be so necessary.
try an anti amd anything, and he says intel and nvidia, as he knows apple can't compete in this space. look at 90% of his previous posts, its always i love apple, apple is the best, amd, intel and nvidia cant compete with apple, except, with super computer hardware
And you go from the assumption that the Nvidia j100 + grace is cheaper and more afficiant than mi300? Technology wise the mi300 is far more superior based on multidie techniques and real full shared memory subsystem.
It's critical to be able to faithfully simulate atomic weapons before the oldest scientists who witnessed actual tests are no longer available for consultation. Also, this helps prevent the need to test the weapons that are in the government's aging stockpile.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
18 Comments
Back to Article
lemurbutton - Thursday, July 6, 2023 - link
As a tax payer, they should have picked Nvidia H100 + Grace combination. It'd be more useful.Yojimbo - Thursday, July 6, 2023 - link
There are a few reasons it wasn't. Number one is that AMD offered a huge discount on Frontier and El Capitan pricing. Nvidia also hasn't been willing to share information on future features because they are more worried about being copied in the commercial space than winning DOE contracts. But yeah, the DOE probably should have used Nvidia for at least one of the three exascale systems. But the timing due to the supposed "race to exascale" made it difficult. El Capitan is a specialized supercomputer running a specific set of code bases, though, and it's possible they really wanted the extra FP64 throughput that the AMD architecture gives them. Hopper is set up for comparatively more AI performance and less FP64 performance. Aurora was already contracted for (from Intel), and Frontier was promised by Cray and AMD earlier than it was eventually delivered, long before Hopper, let alone Grace, was set to be delivered (and the US wanted to be "first to exascale", which they weren't, anyway, with the delays to Frontier and Aurora and which never really mattered because the Chinese decided not to list their machines for whatever reason. Also, I believe one thing the DOE really wanted for Frontier was coherency between the CPUs and GPUs, which couldn't be provided with an Nvidia GPU after IBM dropped out of the bidding and before Grace was available.Curiousland - Thursday, July 6, 2023 - link
As a tax payer, you don't want them to waste money, and that's why after intensive study of proposals they skipped H100 with lower performance/cost.lemurbutton - Thursday, July 6, 2023 - link
That's poor logic. There's a reason why Nvidia is a $1 trillion company now. Their hardware is irreplaceable and simply better than AMD and Intel's.Just leave it to the government for wasting money on AMD hardware. In the business world, where performance/cost/utility actually matter, Nvidia is picked over and over again.
turtile - Thursday, July 6, 2023 - link
The performance numbers for the MI300A haven't been disclosed yet you know that the Nvidia product is better?Nvidia is chosen because of their software. However, this system is written with custom code so it doesn't matter. AMD's performance is probably compatible at a lower price.
These government contracts are meant to help businesses to compete so that we don't have monopolies that result in overpriced goods with little innovation.
duploxxx - Friday, July 7, 2023 - link
You just live on the AI hype. Some companies I sky rocketing on stock and will hard fall down soon enough when revenue are far of target.Dante Verizon - Saturday, July 8, 2023 - link
It's not better. Only the software ecosystem that is already mature...Zoolook - Saturday, July 8, 2023 - link
More like not enough knowledge and understanding on your part or pure Nvidia bias, the logic choice was AMD.lemurbutton - Monday, July 10, 2023 - link
Businesses don't have Nvidia bias. They buy what they think has the best value.Eliadbu - Monday, July 10, 2023 - link
AMD hardware is very capable, but what alway has and still does hold them back is software and complete package. Nvidia for years built very effective CUDA and cuDNN libraries, SDKs and other software. Add that to complete systems like DGX and it makes a lot of sense for businesses to buy from nvidia - as a business you want something that is closest as can be to be doing work for you. You don't want to buy something that you need to create the entire software stack for it. As a government entity depending on what they do it might not be so necessary.BeeKayDubya - Thursday, July 6, 2023 - link
Are you really saying this as a tax payer, or as a proponent/share holder of team green?nandnandnand - Thursday, July 6, 2023 - link
Or as an unpaid troll?Qasar - Friday, July 7, 2023 - link
try an anti amd anything, and he says intel and nvidia, as he knows apple can't compete in this space. look at 90% of his previous posts, its always i love apple, apple is the best, amd, intel and nvidia cant compete with apple, except, with super computer hardwareduploxxx - Friday, July 7, 2023 - link
And you go from the assumption that the Nvidia j100 + grace is cheaper and more afficiant than mi300? Technology wise the mi300 is far more superior based on multidie techniques and real full shared memory subsystem.Aephe - Friday, July 7, 2023 - link
"The system will be used (for) nuclear weapons simulations" - such a shame the worlds' fastest supercomputer will not be put to better use.schujj07 - Friday, July 7, 2023 - link
This is common use for supercomputers at a lot of these national labs.Ktracho - Friday, July 7, 2023 - link
It's critical to be able to faithfully simulate atomic weapons before the oldest scientists who witnessed actual tests are no longer available for consultation. Also, this helps prevent the need to test the weapons that are in the government's aging stockpile.GreenReaper - Friday, July 7, 2023 - link
Better simulate it on computer than test it for real.