Talk:TOP500

message: The discussion of the list of the world's most powerful computing sites as compared to the Top 500 list is POV and lacks cites for its claims and should be altered to NPOV or cut.
Tdewey 06:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a cite, even if it is to your own blog or drop it.    Tdewey 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I am removing the "more sources" tag. We only need one source: the external link to the "top 500" site itself. This site is universally cited in the supercomputer community, and has been maintained by two separate major universities in two countries for more than a decade. If that is not  good enough, then please place a comment here to explain what would be good enough. I do not wish to appear contentious. Instead, I truly want an explanation of what we need to cite to ensure that any ressonable editor would accept as a reference. I realize that not all editors are familiar with the supercomputer community (loosely defined) and may not realize that TOP500 is now the defacto definition for "supercomputer." Thanks.  -Arch dude 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%. Nice initiative. -- Henriok 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "more sources" tag 

message: if this is about top 500 supercomputers, where's the list of the other 490 ones?
Jernejl 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the Top 500 lists ever published are available at the current site with a URL of the form https://www.top500.org/list/1993/06/?page=3 starting from the very first list in June of 1993 subdivided into 5 pages each with 100 entries. LAMurakami (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  500? 

message: In my opinion, this article is in dire need of a Criticisms section.  In fact, someone ought to write an article titled "How the Top 500 List is Destroying Supercomputing".  There is less and less relationship between Linpack performance and achievement of actual science.  Many supercomputers are bought and configured simply to get a high Linpack number, tremendously wasting the taxpayer money spent on them.  This problem has risen to scandalous proportions.  Westwind273 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A plug for MDGRAPE-3  ? Find someone notable who says what you say because I question your claim. Given HPL benchmarks floating point operations which are kind of useful across a wide variety of tasks, any effort to get high floating-point results is a good thing that is broadly appealing. Much better to spend taxpayers money on complex simulations of say bombs than trying destructive testing of the same. Ttiotsw 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm...I have not placed any tags here. See here. On the other hand the news article you link to is dated from 2004 and Seymour Cray (if still alive) would say why the NEC got the top prize - because they were using vector processing whilst the US Gov. focused on scalar processing. It even says ... "and for another, a system that can't get a high Linpack won't do well on other tests,". So basically there is absolutely NO information content in that link: it is a 3 year old ZDNet 'troll' article. Ttiotsw 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dire need for Criticisms section 

message: "Rmax" and "Rpeak" are used as table column headers, but are not explained. -- Beland 05:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: K computer?
IBM Sequoia?
Cray Titan?
It is called Ranger with it's 504 teraflops.
:They only rank the Top500 list twice a year. There probably are several systems that will battle for the #1 spot but are yet to be announced. -- Henriok (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, Ranger entered at #4, with two new systems and the former reigning champion beating it. -- Henriok (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It's been upgraded (http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/ta/ta_display.php?ta_id=100555), and now peaks at 580Tflops.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.111.214 (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Number Ones 

message: Given that most of this page is very specific to each year i have decided to create a new page at TOP500/2007 to make edits to this years list. I think this will be best until someone can rewrite the speicifc sections to reperesent this year instead of giving two halfs of different stories. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TOP500/2007 Now contains the updated list of Top 10 Super Computers. Before Being copied here though the information around it needs to be changed in order to prevent misleading information. I won't move it now because i am unsure how long it will be sat here before someone else updates it. Please check that page before rushing ahead with edits here. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: TOP500/2007 has Highlights from the Top 10 and General highlights from the Top 500 since the last edition sections updated from official TOP500 site by copying all text on source site.  Last Wikipedia version was a subset of source. Please edit as appropriate. ConradPino 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I see only 2 contributors so far, you and I.  I'm not concerned with Contribution history loss.  Conrad T. Pino 08:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary Page to Edit 

message: The 2 graphs near the top of this page are both written in French. I think it might be a good idea to remove them and replace them with new, English illustrations. These French graphs, especially the second one, are mostly useless as it's hard to understand technical terms in French. The second one is very difficult to understand, as people without a basic understanding of French will be unable to understand which country is which. I'm hesitant to take them down, however, until someone can find an alternative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBoulden (talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a slightly improved (vectorized) version of the first graph, with the labels translated into English. I tried to stay as close to the original as possible but I think it can still be improved (at least by updating the data, maybe by using a log scale). However, as I don't know much about supercomputers, it would be good if someone could check that one first. For example, does it make sense to include BOINC and Folder@home in the graph? Where can I get good data on these projects? Once we have a stable version of that graph, I will update the R code to commons so that it can be easily updated/modified/translated in the future. I also removed the second graph. The bar graph representing computational power per country could probably be recreated in a vector format but I think that the pie chart makes no sense at all. GL (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Illustrations? 

message: The article says the performance increased with Moore's Law, but that idea refers to the number of transistors, not performance.  Has the total number of transistors in the #1 spot doubled every 18 months? -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Moore's Law]] 

message: The link created to the page called Top500/2007 now leads to this article. I think it would helpful to have the page Top500/2007 and a page for Top500/2008. While there are some references to rankings of different supercomputers in previous years, there is no longer a complete list of the information historically, and I think it would be useful to be able to see the historical rankings and the way computers are moving up and down the list, and new ones popping onto the lists. Unfortunately, I do not have that historical information, or I would be willing to put up the top ten lists for the pages.  
Please discuss establishing at least the Top500/2007 and Top500/2008 list page. Alternatively, create the page Historical Top500 supercomputer ranking which would incorporate 2007 and 2008, since from the names in this discussion it sound like people who know/have access to those lists are still actively maintaining this Top500 page.  An advantage to actually creating one page Historical Top500 supercomputer ranking would be that if people knew Top500 lists from additional previous years they could also enter those lists to make the page more and more historically useful.Gramery (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea. I think it's best to have the lists on the same page. Please also note that it's a bi-annual list. All required data is readily available on the Top500 homepage at least back to June 2005. -- Henriok (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be a good name? Previous Top500 Lists? Historical Top500 Lists? I looked at the top500 homepage, so I can access the information, but I have never created a page before. I can work on the project in January 2010.- Gramery (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: TOP500 lists or TOP500 (history) are my sugestions. Just click on either link to begin creating you article. You can probably copy&paste the previous 5-6 lists from the archive on this page. -- Henriok (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for discussion on creation of a page of previous Top500 lists

message: Tianhe-1A should not appear on any Top500 related pages until the system is officially listed at top500.org. Just because news came out, it does not belong in top500 related pages until its officially listed.
At 2.507 petaflops, it is faster than Jaguar, http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2010/10/28/at-2-5-petaflops-chinas-tianhe-1a-likely-worlds-fastest-supercomputer-7835.html
The article links to Tianhe-1 as the world's fastest supercomputer, but in fact it is Tianhe-1A.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/76731/20101028/tianhe-1a-tianhe-supercomputer-fastest-supercomputer-china-us-nvidia-amd-gpum-cpu-chip-semiconductor.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.89.246 (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tianhe-1A reaches 2.507 petaflops 

message: Let the edits flow. http://top500.org/list/2010/11/100 –– Henriok (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's up. Nov 2010. Tiranhe is a GO! 

message: Does TOP stand for anything?  If so, that should be explained.  If not, and it's just the word "top", the term should not be capitalized as if it were an acronym, no matter what its boosters do (remember, they're boosters; Wikipedia is not). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronym? 

message: The graph labeled "top countries"  needs more information:  The numbers represent the number of computers in the top 500 that are in the given countries, but this is not state.  Also 09, etc. are unclear:  they could be dates of the months; so they should be written as full years, e.g., 2009. 211.225.39.71 (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  top countries 

message: See the section: Linux range of use#Linux for supercomputers (my recent edits) and Linux#Servers, mainframes and supercomputers. The latter has old info saying Linux runs on most powerful 44. There is at least one new ranked 10 (see my recent edits at this page). If number 45 to X are all Linux based can I safely say that all X most powerful run Linux? I'm just too lazy to comb the list.. There is at least only one Windows (one fewer than in June). Is there a list of just the new computers (or upgraded ones?)
Anyone know what the one Unix, non-AIX OS is? There are three SPARC, have there ever been one running Sun/Oracle's OSes? Would it be HP-UX, if I do want to comb the list? The one "mixed" one, seems to be the one marked "Cell OS", using an Intel CPU. An error? See, inline comments in the first section I pointed to. comp.arch (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual (new) computers? Non-Linux.. 

message: I get what you were trying to do, attempting to make it easier to read for those that are colourblind, but right now it is kinda painful to look at, and some of it is so small and hard to read as to almost be useless (especially the top countries one). Does anyone have any suggestions on how to further improve it? I feel where it is right now is not quite there yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.135.114 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need new visualization of the numbers. I suggest that we use the plots produced on the official website here. Hopechen (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Graphs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on TOP500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928004531/http://www.hpcwire.com/archives/10219.html to http://www.hpcwire.com/archives/10219.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This graph, included in the article,  is really misleading.
 
The y-axis should reach from 0 to 500. As it is, it appears that the USA don't have many supercomputers, but they actually had over 200.
Also, the distribution has changed a lot since 2015. (China now has the most supercomputers). Needs an update. Does anyone here know how to edit an SVG? Chessrat (talk, contributions)  05:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto Canada and Oman. This is fun! -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I updated it for 2020. My source code is here: https://github.com/dlenski/top500. , regarding the y-axis: the problem here is that there are a lot of countries to fit in, and a wide range of numbers of system. I compress the Y axis of the lower chart to fit more countries in, and I relegated the countries that make up less than 10% of all systems over TOP500 history to the top chart, with a smaller Y axis range. Can you suggest a better way of fitting them all and showing the variation more clearly? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 05:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Personally I don't think there's much point in including all countries in the graph, as the smaller ones are barely visible. I think I'd just have one graph with a scale from 0 to 500; include the 15 most-widespread countries (down to Russia) and put "others" for the rest (rather than charting them individually). Chessrat (talk, contributions)  20:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree on this one. I think it's quite interesting to see which smaller countries have 1 or a few TOP500 systems, even if a few countries hugely dominate. In terms of making the bottom edge 0, that's probably a good idea… it is kind of confusing now that the US doesn't have >50% of the total. I'll change that. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks, the graph looks good enough to me now. Chessrat (talk, contributions)  02:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Great! Source code is available, so if you or anyone else can come up with a clearer way of presenting this data, I'm all 👂 and 👀. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 02:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph is very misleading (and needs an update) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on TOP500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hoise.com/primeur/PL/96/pl-top500/ES-PL-11-96-4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey folks, throwaway account here.
While doing a wiki walk on supercomputers, I noticed that the "See also" section contains a link to the NDMC Russian military supercomputer, alongside a questionably phrased "most powerfull (sic) military supercomputer" description.
I question the relevance of the link (much like I would question a link like "USA most powerful military supercomputer"), compared to the other ones in the section. Not to mention that I question the neutrality of the author, who seems to be the main author of the linked page and (woo, ad hominem) seems to have been involved in NPOV/edit warring bans in the past.
The "most powerful military supercomputer" phrasing has been removed from the NDMC page this month, and I'm wondering whether it would make sense to revert the edit that added the NDMC link in the section altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cijrlnksj (talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDMC link in "See also" section seems irrelevant, biased 

message: For your information, TOP500 published the following release: "TOP500 list refreshed, US edged out of third place", TOP500, 19 June 2017 (page visited on 19 June 2017).128.178.188.36 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Forgive me if I have missed anything in the article in what I state below:
The current "Distribution of supercomputers in the TOP500 list by country (June 2016)" only states the total number of supercomputers possessed by each country within the TOP500 LIST BUT does not indicate the total Computing 'Capability' (in flops) possessed by each country.  Ideally, there would be 2 separate lists, one indicating total FLOP capacity per country AND one indicating total NETWORKED FLOP capacity by country.  This would presumably lead to different rankings.  Of course, there's a lot of information that both lists would NOT indicate (such as how this Computing Capability is marshalled and utilised and how it fits into a larger, say, strategic, military, economic or psychological paradigm/context) which would presumably require a different form of analysis and information which may not be on the internet.  
I will endeavour to consider making sense of the figures at : http://web.archive.org/web/20001202071700/www.top500.org/lists/TOP500List.php3?Y=1999&M=11 
to see whether I can produce a (Very Basic) visual representation of total Flop Capacity Per Country.  This does not constitute anything approaching a promise.    
ASavantDude (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranking of Countries by Total Computing Power (Both Networked and Non-Networked)

message: Why is Gyoukou no longer on the list? It was on a previous version of the list with Rmax of 19.136, so should still be ranked at #7. Did the operators choose to no longer participate in the list? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Gyoukou? 

message: In the system ranked no.1 section seems to be an empty spot between November 2017 and June 2018. That is, the current top 1 started in June 2018 but the previous finished its realm in November 2017.
92.58.88.78 (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 1 computer missing from November 2017 to June 2018? 

message: Overall, there seems to be lot of information in this article which attempts to highlight Chinese supercomputers and companies, though often out of context and of little importance to the top 500 supercomputers. A sample below gives a summary of this issue:
* China currently dominates the list with 229 supercomputers
* A further two computers are based on seemingly related Chinese designs: ShenWei and Sunway SW26010 also using Chinese co-processors
* Two computers which first appeared on the list in 2018 are based on architectures never before seen on the Top500. One was a new x86-64 microarchitecture from Chinese vendor Sugon, using Hygon Dhyana CPUs (a collaboration between AMD and the Chinese, based on Zen) and is ranked 38th
* but the Gyoukou supercomputer that jumped to 4th place in November 2017 (after a huge upgrade) has MIPS as a small part of the coprocessors. Use of 2,048-core coprocessors (plus 8× 6-core MIPS, for each, that "no longer require to rely on an external Intel Xeon E5 host processor"[17]) make the supercomputer much more energy efficient than the other top 10 (i.e. it is 5th on Green500 and other such ZettaScaler-2.2-based systems take first three spots).[18] At 19.86 million cores, it is by far the biggest system: almost double that of the best manycore system in the TOP500, the Chinese Sunway TaihuLight, ranked 3rd.
* to exceed China's Tianhe-2 in its place as world's fastest supercomputer
* US government agencies banned selling chips, from Nvidia, to supercomputing centers in China as "acting contrary to the national security ... interests of the United States";[33] and Intel Corporation from providing Xeon chips to China due to their use, according to the US, in researching nuclear weapons – research to which US export control law bans US companies from contributing
* Inspur has been one of the largest HPC system manufacturer based out of Jinan, China. As of May 2017, Inspur has become the third manufacturer to have manufactured 64-way system – a record which has been previously mastered by IBM and HP. The company has registered over $10B in revenues and have successfully provided a number of HPC systems to countries outside China such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela. Inspur was also a major technology partner behind both the supercomputers from China, namely Tianhe-2 and Taihu which lead the top 2 positions of Top500 supercomputer list up to November 2017. Inspur and Supermicro released a few platforms aimed at HPC using GPU such as SR-AI and AGX-2 in May 2017.
108.174.243.190 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Edits 

message: In English, the convention for writing numbers is to separate thousands with commas rather than dots, i.e. 1,463 rather than 1.463.  Is the usage of dots in the table in this article meant to have this meaning, or is there some other reasons for using dots that I'm being ignorant about?  They can't be decimals, surely?  And if they are being used for separating thousands, can we change them to commas? - Jthistle38 (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *You would be correct. English Wikipedia has the relevant style guide here: MOS:DIGITS. Essentially it states:  I don't pay much attention to the table, as it's easier to go look at the TOP 500 website. I wonder if this has crept in as the table is potentially moved from another language Wikipedia. The table should just be changed to commas as per the manual of style. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of dots for numbers 

message: Good morning all.
I see a puffery filled article here [] making claims for this computer.  We do not seem to have an article about it, so I thought I would raise the question here in case someone knows whether it is notable, and could note it somewhere.
Regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dammam 7 

message: These are really just the 500 fastest Linpack machines in the world, not the 500 most powerful supercomputers in terms of actual science achieved. Westwind273 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The emperor has no clothes 

message: "As of June 2024, ..." (added May 14, 2024) is misleading as currently it is not yet June. Looking at the TOP500 website, it seems that they have published the June 2024 list more than 2 weeks early. This seems very much like car manufacturers advertising the '2024' model in like October of 2023. Alas, there is likely nothing that can be done about this. I just did a double take reading "as of June" and wondering if I had lost a week of my life somehow and now I'm complaining on the internet
- NotifyThePublic (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "as of June 2024" in May