• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    351 year ago

    I don’t know what they need so many GPUs for. There’s 16 displays inside, and the sphere itself has fewer pixels than even 1 of the internal displays. You could probably run the sphere off a laptop if you aren’t trying to do anything fancy.

    Maybe they plan on doing crazy live simulations on it or something. I can’t imagine what kind of displayed image would actually use all 150 of them. Nvidia A6000 cards are damn powerful.

    • Yardy Sardley
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      Probably have a few cards running the displays and the rest of them mining some sphere-themed memecoin

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My job has been to run things on GPUs for almost 10 years now. The only thing anyone practical is doing on that many GPUs is AI training, massive scientific simulations, or crypto mining. 1 or 2 of them is enough to run something like ChatGPT.

        Real-time graphics it turns out don’t scale well across multiple GPUs. There’s a reason SLI has gone away for consumer GPUs. At the current ratio, each of those $3000+ GPUs is only driving 8000 pixels (assuming each led puck is being used as 1 pixel, given their size). It makes no sense other than bragging rights

    • shastaxc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      I guess the practicality of the decision depends on the finances. Did they actually buy the cards or were they gifted by nvidia for free advertising?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        161 year ago

        It does seem suspiciously like they picked 150 completely arbitrarily to make the project sound impressive, when they could have easily done it with 20. I’m sure a bunch of people in the middle made a bunch of money off that transaction too. Or like you said, maybe this is Nvidia doing some guerrilla marketing

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      The power usage wouldn’t be a problem if the electricity were generated in a green way.

      If only the energy sector had a workforce experienced in building offshore structures that could build offshore wind farms. And maybe a workforce that had experience in drilling that could develop geothermal energy.

      Of course we also need an energy sector that had a lot of financial resources to put into these kinds of investments.

      If only the energy sector had these kinds of resources, a big sphere drawing a lot of electricity wouldn’t be a problem.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        As an industry insider, can tell you old oil and gas wells are being converted to geothermal where possible. There is lots of innovation in the works!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    65
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    28,000,000 watts

    That’s usually written as 28MW. I know some Americans don’t like metric much, but one of the points of metric is that you don’t ever need to write that many zeroes - you just need to use the right prefix (kilo, mega, giga, tera, etc) on the unit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you just need to use the right prefix (kilo, mega, giga, tera, etc) on the unit.

      Oh, thanks.

      Bruh, it’s PC Gamer.

      quick edit: Hey! Why aren’t you converting it to Joules?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        201 year ago

        Because Joule is the SI unit of energy, meanwhile the Watt is the SI unit of power, equivalent to one Joule per second.

        “Converting” joules to watts would be like converting m/s to US dollars.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          I liked the analogy but I do think it would be clearer to say something like joules = money in bank account and Watt = spending per second

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      321 year ago

      True, but 28 million watts really puts things in perspective when your average PSU is less than 1000w.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 year ago

        Exactly. This is literally a PC gamer article. Writing it out like that really puts it into perspective for the average reader.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        That’s true.

        average PSU is less than 1000w

        Unrelated but I wish it was easier to find lower-wattage PSUs. My local PC store doesn’t have anything under 650W. I know modern GPUs use a lot of power, but not all PCs use a GPU! I have a home server where 400W would be more than enough, yet the smallest I could find was 550W, in stock from just one manufacturer (Be Quiet).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          I mean, it should be fine, just because the PSU can provide more watts doesn’t mean the system is actually using that much power. I have an 800w PSU in my gaming rig, but its average load is only 240 - 320w during gaming (I’ve measured it by powering the system with a portable Ecoflow battery).

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              7
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Where are you getting this from? Intuition?

              I think the quiescent current and losses are less in a well engineered psu.

              • hedidwot
                link
                fedilink
                English
                141 year ago

                This is verifiable in manufactures data sheets.

                Efficiency at less than 20% and greater than 80% loads isn’t great relative to in between those ends.

                This is compounded by lower wattage PSUs being more limited with regard to features and benefits.

                If you end up with a 650w PSU and your system idles at 80 watts for the bulk of a working day you spend long periods of time in this less efficient window.

                We need to see some quality 300w to 600w designs come back onto the market.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Well, it depends on how much you’re spending: 80 plus titanium units, for example, are 90% efficient at both ends of the spectrum, which is as good as a 80 plus gold unit at the ideal 50% load.

                  Of course, they’re expensive, and thus maybe not really the best solution since the wasted power is probably never going to add up to the cost of the better PSU, but there is enough of a demand for high and low load efficiency that it’s a thing that you could go buy.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    381 year ago

    Add a solar array and battery bank, a you might even have electricity left over. It’s in the desert after all.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1511 year ago

    Currently, an agreement is under review to ensure that 70% of the Sphere’s power needs will come from solar sources, with the other 30% from non-renewable energy that will be offset by renewable energy credits.

    Nevada has pledged to achieve net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, and the solar project under construction to help offset its energy debt is estimated to complete in 2027.

    How stupid is it that somebody can claim “Net Zero” greenhouse gas emissions when 30% of their power is greenhouse gas.

    Just gonna throw this out there. Fuck credits, charge a carbon tax.

    • capital
      link
      fedilink
      English
      691 year ago

      We’ll also ignore the fact that that solar could have been used to offset actual needs instead of this BS.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        181 year ago

        If only Las Vegas were located somewhere that the sun shines almost all day every day. \s

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          If only the creators of the ball had enough profit coming in to put up more solar panels and build up a battery bank for the night so they wouldn’t take anything from the grid…

        • capital
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          And yet they still couldn’t cover the last 30%.

            • capital
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Regardless, that energy could be going to offset other energy currently being produced by non-renewables no matter which way you slice it.

            • Morphit
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              So build concentrated solar power and store the heat for after the sun sets. Bonus - thermal power plant turbines give inertia to the grid, which photo-voltaics don’t.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          I highly doubt the operating hours of this ball of decadence match the time when solar power peaks

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Maybe, I mean just maybe, they can run this thing only as long as the solar generated power lasts, and then turn it off 30% of the time.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Fuck credits, charge a carbon tax.

      IMO it seems RECs are a better solution than carbon taxes at least in situations like this. With RECs you’re buying renewable energy to offset non-renewables, with a carbon tax the company is just giving the government money for use of non-renewables. Only funds spent on RECs in this case actually go to supporting the renewable energy sector. I’m no expert in this stuff so I could be off, just how I understand it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      161 year ago

      Well you don’t understand what “net” means.

      It doesn’t mean literally zero. It means colunm A and column B average out to zero.

      To acheive a real net zero, they have to save energy somewhere else that takes that column past 100% (Such as if their solar panels produce more energy than they use during certain times.)

      They probably just make some shit up to say their are saving extra somewhere they aren’t (so to that point, yes…credits are bullshit.)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      301 year ago

      The word net does a lot of heavy lifting and it’s just a scam

      You can use 100% coal power and claim net zero by buying a forest

  • Todd Bonzalez
    link
    fedilink
    English
    571 year ago

    Wait, why do they need 150 GPUs for a 1.2 megapixel display?

    That’s less than 1080p!

    Who engineered this monstrosity?

      • Todd Bonzalez
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ah, you’re right, that’s 1.2 megapixel for the exterior, and 132 megapixel for the interior.

        That’s a substantial increase, but it’s still the equivalent of about 16 4K screens, which absolutely does not need 150 GPUs!

        Edit: No, I was wrong, this entire monstrosity is overengineered to over two gigapixels on the inside, and that’s absolutely ridiculous.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Anything most likely driving factor here?

          Extreme resolution requirements, massive number of LED elements, real-time rendering and synchronization needs, complex content processing, load distribution and redundancy, future-proofing capabilities, fraudulent kickback scheme

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      57
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They say there are 16 screens inside, each with a 16k resolution. Such a screen would have 16x as many pixels as a 4k screen. The GPUs power those as well.

      For the number of GPUs it appears to make sense. 150 GPUs for the equivalent of about 256 4k screens means each GPU handles ±2 4k screens. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but it could make sense.

      The power draw of 28 MW still seems ridiculous to me though. They claim about 45 kW for the GPUs, which leaves 27955 kW for everything else. Even if we assume the screens are stupid and use 1 kw per 4k segment, that only accounts for 256 kW, leaving 27699 kW. Where the fuck does all that energy go?! Am I missing something?

      • Todd Bonzalez
        link
        fedilink
        English
        181 year ago

        Oh Jesus, there are 16 16K screens? I didn’t read that right at all. That’s completely superfluous. The Las Vegas Sphere is an affront to God.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          151 year ago

          In the future there will be myths that we once had standards such as html but after we tried to build this sphere, god cursed us to use only incompatible proprietary protocols

      • Vanix
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is a complete shot in the dark but could the huge power draw come from needing some intense industrial cooling/airflow stuff in/on the sphere?

        Edit: forgot a word

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The big power draw is because of the sheer amount of light it dumps out. You try lighting up 54,000 square meters of LED panel to a few hundred nits like a pc monitor, and see how much power it takes.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          complete shot in the dark

          Man, I wanna delay the stupid edgy joke I’m making but I can’t help myself

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    761 year ago

    It’s funny, I think Vegas is perfectly fine as the city of sin so things like this really don’t phase me. It was built on the idea of crime and excess.

    What does seem weird to me is how in a desert, why isn’t everything solar? The sun is their only natural resource besides sand. Every rooftop and parking lot and flat surface possible seems like it should be a panel.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Solar only works during the day. During night you need batteries which are not renewable. Mining lithium trashes ecosystems and we probably have enough for like 50 more years at this rate, cobalt is extracted through slave labour. And we’ve seen how well recycling works for other materials which are less complex. So all these renewables aren’t all that green in every aspect. Unless we solve the energy storage problem it isn’t as simple as putting up more panels.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You know, I’m getting really sick of these comments where people think they know what they’re talking about and repeat a bunch of talking points about lithium.

        Lithium is not going to be the basis of a renewable grid. We need it for EVs because it’s the best Wh/kg that we have right now, but we don’t care so much about weight for grid storage. Cost/kg is the main measure we care about there (though there are some other considerations in specific conditions). We already have tech being deployed in the field that’s better than lithium for grid storage. Flow batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, or just heating up sand or rocks. Others, like sodium batteries, are being manufactured and will probably find their way into real products in the next few years.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Chill, no need to be stressed. Part of the ideas you mentioned are already implemented in some cases, but they are not without drawbacks. Pumped hydro is good, but has high maintainance costs, messes with the fish and requires large bodies of water, how do you get tbat in the desert? Flywheels have good inertia, great for stabilizing the grid, Ireland has some for that exact reason, but can’t store a whole lot. And heating up roxks and sand may work if you need heat at night, but you need electricity, so you need water to turn into steam to produce it. Sodium batteries look the most promising, we’ll see how they develop. But until we get these storqge facilities built, adding more solar would only destabilise the grids even more.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            So if you knew this which is a reasonable post why do you post the propaganda piece before?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What propaganda? I think you have to go back and read my post once more… The thread started from solar panels in the desert. At the moment the most widely used grid storage is pumped hydro, how will you do that in the desert? Next most used tech RIGHT NOW is lithium batteries. Other solutions exist, but how many are there implemented and ready to capture that energy right now? Oh, not so many? Then putting up more solar panels hoping that one day we have the storage for them is foolish, these panles lose efficiency over time. I don’t have an agenda to spread, there is no propaganda, I am only talking about the an issue which exists, which is energy storage, for which we have some solutions, with their pros and cons, but not close to being implemented.

      • Gormadt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        Sodium batteries (which are on the market now) are way more environmentally friendly than Lithium batteries.

        The materials are very accessible by comparison to Lithium batteries and they’re way more stable.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        361 year ago

        even deserts host life. it’s kind of a ecological misnomer that we could just cover the deserts of the world in solar panels. that would have serious repercussions.

        • AutistoMephisto
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Honestly if we could get space elevators figured out, the best place to put solar panels would be in the upper atmosphere. Tethered to the ground by massive columns that feed the energy they collect to massive capacitors on the ground?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Also, the ocean is a desert with its life underground and the perfect disguise above.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    someone pay to put the Lemmy logo on it, i heard there was a way to pay for an image to show up

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      Vegas is almost entirely powered by the hoover dam. It’s already pretty green as far as energy goes. The question will be where do they get their power from in a few years when lake mead dries up.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        In addition to the other thing, dams have a dramatic and disastrous impact on the ecology in the immediate area and the entire riparian system they connect to. It’s “green” in terms of emissions but they’re still harmful and we should be phasing them out for lower impact alternatives as much as possible.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Should? Definitely, but let’s be realistic, we can barely get people off of coal and oil right now.

          In the world we live in, Dams have some of the lowest environmental impact compared to the other places we get our energy.

          So we probably shouldn’t be trying to phase them out while there are much more severe effects being felt from the other base load facilities.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 year ago

        That’s not true. The Hoover Dam contributes to Vegas’s power supply, but it’s nowhere near “almost entirely powered” by the dam, except in Fallout: New Vegas.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fallout: New Vegas is powered by my ever dwindling sanity. I am currently trying to get my mods to play nice.

          Also its implied ingame that only the strip is powered by the damn dam and that Freeside and West Vegas get either limited or no power, hence why directing the electricity from Helios One to the area is such a big deal.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s no such thing as “ASAP” for nuclear power. If you had the permits signed off today, it would take 10 years before a single GWh of new nuclear energy goes to the grid.

      Instead, maybe we shouldn’t build giant spherical advertising displays?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        There’s no such thing as “ASAP” for nuclear power

        Sure there is. It’s just that the P stands for “20 years from now.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      Yeah we should have never invented televisions or records either! And don’t even get me started on cell phones. Just waste waste waste.

      Why, if it were up to me we would all still be hunting and gathering!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Apples to oranges dude, this is for pure spectacle that wears off after five minutes. Plus any data gained from it was at the lab they prototyped it I believe in Burbank. This aint really a sign of progress, and itll be funny to see what happens to it when it inevitably breaks.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      Its one of the smaller atrocities in Vegas, particularly when compared to the Bellagio Fountain or the food waste generated by all those casino dining halls.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        The fountains aren’t quite as wasteful as they seem. They use a lot of water compared to a house, but way less than some car washes.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Plus it is recycled. They would only replace what is lost due to evaporation or after a drain and cleaning.

          • Corgana
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I looked it up (because the air is very dry in Nevada) and about 32,000 gallons of water per day are evaporated at the Bellagio fountains.

            Source: The Las Vegas Sun

            An average car wash uses 40 gallons per car and washes a hundred cars per day: Source

    • JackbyDev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      261 year ago

      I believe that’s implied in the “hubris” bit.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    261 year ago

    Using the max power use of a video card to math this is ridiculous. It’s not at full TDP pushing this content. They aren’t playing max FPS 3D raytraced gaming, they’re playing videos.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Synchronizing that many screens into one/two continuous displays is not light computing work. Roughly every square foot is its own panel in commercial displays.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      What.

      The article says that, for the GPUs, they can have a “maximum power draw of 45,000 W at full tilt”.

      The 28 million W comes from the full system, and surely the massive displays, LEDs and eventually sound system makes up the bulk of that, the gfx cards are a rounding error…

  • SunDevil
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    “Capable of drawing 28,000,000 watts of power” doesn’t tell us anything. As was noted, it should’ve been given in megawatts (28 mW) or kilowatts (28,000 kW). Clickbait aside, how many kilowatt-hours (kWh) does it actually use?

    28 mW isn’t that much energy, relatively speaking. As of 2015, Forbes estimated LV uses 8000 mW on an average summer day.

    The potential is impressive. I doubt it pulls anywhere near that. Unless I did my math wrong, this seems sensationalist.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Just Fyi, mW is milliwatts, and MW is megawatts. Agreed though, I doubt it draws that much day to day.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t get it, are they implying that each GPU can draw 200kW? a home is like 10 max. Wtf is a gpu that can consume more power than 20 homes? Mine at home draws peak 300W…

      Each of those GPUs feature over 10,752 cores, 48 GB of memory and have a 300 W TDP, for a grand total of 1,612,800 cores, 7,200 GB of GDDR6 memory, and a potential maximum power draw of 45,000 W at full tilt (via Wccftech).

      ok, monster gpus, got it.