63 of the 1345 systems here are directly liquid cooled, carrying
275 MW of the 911 MW this dataset records.
The transition from air is not gradual: air cooling stops being physically capable somewhere
around 20 kW a rack, and current cabinets are rated to twenty times that. This is the layer
a ranking stops short of, and it is now more often the constraint on building the next machine
than the silicon is.
Phase 1 seed dataset, compiled by hand.
These rows were built from public operator, laboratory and vendor sources. A
mechanical second-reader pass has since fetched every
cited source: 1263 of 1345 systems have a readable citation that names
them, and 56 are genuinely weakly sourced. Every claim carries its source and a
confidence tier. Treat anything below
verified as a lead, not a citation.
Read the shape, not the spikes. This is the installed base of the
1345 systems in this dataset: a curated seed chosen for supply-chain diversity, not
a census of the market. At that sample size one machine entering or leaving service moves a share
line by tens of points, so year-to-year jumps are composition effects rather than market events.
The multi-year trends are the part worth quoting; the individual steps usually have one system's
name on them, and the
table view under the chart will tell you which.
Direct liquid cooling, warm water
Direct-to-chip cold plate
Air cooling (CRAC/CRAH)
Liquid-assisted air (in-cabinet coil)
Chilled-water indirect liquid cooling
Single-phase immersion
Direct water-cooled LSI (pre-cold-plate era)
Conduction-cooled liquid (primary/secondary loop)
Not recorded
Share of installed Rmax by cooling architecture. The grey band is systems where we have no recorded architecture: a gap in the dataset, not a category of machine.
Table view: Cooling architecture share of installed FLOPS
Year
Direct liquid cooling, warm water
Direct-to-chip cold plate
Air cooling (CRAC/CRAH)
Liquid-assisted air (in-cabinet coil)
Chilled-water indirect liquid cooling
Single-phase immersion
Direct water-cooled LSI (pre-cold-plate era)
Conduction-cooled liquid (primary/secondary loop)
Not recorded
Installed total
1993
0.0%
0.0%
51.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
31.1%
17.9%
398.3 GFlop/s
1994
0.0%
0.0%
43.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
26.3%
30.7%
472.1 GFlop/s
1995
0.0%
0.0%
25.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.8%
58.4%
786.5 GFlop/s
1996
0.0%
0.0%
29.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.5%
63.8%
1.92 TFlop/s
1997
0.0%
0.0%
43.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%
53.5%
3.79 TFlop/s
1998
0.0%
0.0%
19.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
79.2%
8.46 TFlop/s
1999
0.0%
0.0%
15.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
83.6%
10.76 TFlop/s
2000
0.0%
0.0%
8.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
91.3%
20.15 TFlop/s
2001
0.0%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
94.9%
34.36 TFlop/s
2002
0.0%
0.0%
49.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
50.5%
104.08 TFlop/s
2003
0.0%
0.0%
31.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
68.3%
162.05 TFlop/s
2004
0.0%
0.0%
68.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
31.2%
769.52 TFlop/s
2005
0.0%
0.0%
46.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
53.6%
1.14 PFlop/s
2006
0.0%
0.0%
39.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
60.9%
1.35 PFlop/s
2007
0.0%
0.0%
17.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
82.3%
2.99 PFlop/s
2008
3.5%
0.4%
56.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
39.4%
13.22 PFlop/s
2009
2.4%
0.3%
39.7%
9.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
48.3%
18.89 PFlop/s
2010
1.6%
0.2%
25.7%
6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
66.5%
29.03 PFlop/s
2011
11.7%
0.1%
15.3%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
10.8%
0.0%
58.6%
48.84 PFlop/s
2012
27.0%
0.0%
5.9%
15.2%
0.0%
0.0%
4.1%
0.0%
47.8%
127.4 PFlop/s
2013
16.7%
0.0%
3.5%
9.1%
0.0%
0.1%
2.5%
0.0%
68.2%
212.7 PFlop/s
2014
14.8%
0.0%
2.7%
8.1%
0.0%
0.1%
2.2%
0.0%
72.1%
239.1 PFlop/s
2015
12.4%
0.0%
2.1%
6.3%
0.0%
0.2%
1.7%
0.0%
77.3%
309.0 PFlop/s
2016
17.2%
0.0%
1.3%
6.8%
9.4%
0.1%
1.1%
0.0%
64.0%
492.4 PFlop/s
2017
16.2%
0.0%
2.0%
11.6%
7.2%
3.1%
0.8%
0.0%
59.1%
646.2 PFlop/s
2018
13.6%
22.9%
1.2%
7.0%
4.4%
1.9%
0.5%
0.0%
48.5%
1.06 EFlop/s
2019
12.3%
21.5%
1.1%
6.3%
3.9%
1.1%
0.4%
0.0%
53.4%
1.19 EFlop/s
2020
32.8%
12.9%
3.9%
2.9%
2.3%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
44.6%
1.98 EFlop/s
2021
32.2%
10.5%
3.1%
2.3%
1.9%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
49.6%
2.50 EFlop/s
2022
59.3%
5.6%
1.6%
1.2%
1.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
31.0%
4.69 EFlop/s
2023
57.3%
3.7%
2.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
34.5%
7.05 EFlop/s
2024
63.2%
2.4%
1.7%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
32.0%
11.12 EFlop/s
2025
58.5%
0.8%
1.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
38.8%
14.10 EFlop/s
2026
50.2%
0.1%
1.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
48.1%
17.54 EFlop/s
How this was calculated, and the inference behind most of these rows
Same construction as the other share charts: each in-service system contributes its
last reported Rmax to every year it was live, split evenly where more than one
architecture is recorded.
Most cooling edges here are inferred from the integrator's cabinet platform, not
stated per system. That inference is worth being explicit about. Operators publish core counts and interconnect
families; they publish cooling far less consistently. But the cabinet determines the architecture:
every HPE Cray EX cabinet is 100% direct liquid cooled, every BullSequana XH2000 and XH3000
is a direct liquid cooled platform, Lenovo's SD650 is Neptune warm water, the Cray XT/XE/XK/XC
generations moved air across in-cabinet water coils.
So where the platform is unambiguous we record the architecture with the integrator as
supplier, confidence: reported, and the basis written into the edge's
raw_string (you can read "HPE Cray EX cabinet) 100% direct liquid cooled" on
the system page and judge the inference yourself. Where the platform does not settle it,
we record nothing. Nine systems have no cooling edge for that reason and appear in the “Not
recorded” band rather than being assigned a plausible value.
Installed megawatts use power_kw where an operator has published it. Only 523 of 1345 systems do. A blank power figure means we found no source, not zero,
so the megawatt totals below are a floor across the systems that disclose, never a census.
Do not read the GF/W column as a cooling effect. Warm-water systems show
roughly seven times the median efficiency of the liquid-assisted-air generation, and almost
all of that is confounded with time: the warm-water systems span
2008–2026 and the in-cabinet-coil ones 2009–2017. What actually changed over that window is the silicon. Cooling architecture followed
rack density rather than causing the efficiency gain, and this dataset cannot separate
the two.
By cooling supplier
The company that supplied the cabinet, rolled up to today's parent. On direct-liquid
platforms the integrator supplies the cooling, which is why this table looks like the
integrator table rather than like a list of thermal vendors.
The chart has one clean transition and one honest hole.
The transition is physical rather than commercial. Air carries roughly 3,500 times less
heat per unit volume than water, and the fan power needed to move it scales with about
the cube of velocity. A hall handles 5 to 10 kW a rack comfortably and 20 kW with
effort; a current accelerator cabinet is 40 to 400 kW. There was no decision point at
which the industry preferred liquid: there was a density at which air stopped being an
option. The Cray XT/XE/XC generation is the visible
intermediate step: air, but moved across a water coil inside the cabinet.
The hole is the “Not recorded” band, and it is 1244 systems wide. It sits
mostly in the early years and among the machines whose operators published least, which is
the same shape as the wider problem. This is the thinnest layer of the dataset precisely because
it is the layer nobody discloses, and that is the argument for recording it at all.
What the megawatt column cannot show is the part that now binds. Of the
511 sites here, 12 publishes a PUE and almost none publish substation
capacity or utility. Yet lead times on medium-voltage switchgear and large transformers have
run to years, and in several markets the utility interconnection queue is measured in multi-year
increments. The constraint on the next generation of machines is increasingly a piece of electrical
infrastructure that no ranking has ever had a column for.
The power and cooling chapter covers the engineering
in detail: how warm-water cooling removes the chillers, what PUE conceals, and why heat reuse
works in Kajaani and not in Arizona.
This site uses Google Analytics to see which pages get read. If you accept, it may set
cookies to recognise repeat visits. If you reject, no cookies are set, but an anonymous page-load
count is still sent. See how we use it.