4 ms·
At the time of the last list, there were two systems in China that had recently broken this barrier, but their owners have chosen not to submit benchmarks to th
by davidmr 4y ago
At the time of the last list, there were two systems in China that had recently broken this barrier, but their owners have chosen not to submit benchmarks to the Top500.
- arcanus 4y ago> there were two systems in China that had recently broken this barrier Allegedly broken this barrier. There is a reason that science is conducted in the open, in a reproducible and traceable manner. Those systems might not function properly at scale, or might not have run at an exaflop in double precision compute. Frontier is certainly the first publicly verified system to achieve Exascale on the internationally accepted standard measurement.
- muxr 4y agoThere is also an article about how they did submit a score from one of these Chinese "exaflop" systems, for a different benchmark and it turns out it can only achieve the claimed performance at half precision: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/chinese-exascale-supercomputers-hoax https://www.tomshardware.com/news/chinese-exascale-supercomp...
- throwaway4good 4y agoWhich would still make it faster than previous number one machine, no?
- freemint 4y agoMaybe not. Fugaku also had super exa scale performance at reduced precision
- throwaway4good 4y agoI suppose we can discuss what the source of the souring of scientific coorperation is. But it does appear that China has at least two computers that are faster than its current best performing entry on the top 500. And that basically invalidates the list.
- 0des 4y agoChina has a lot of things that invalidate common knowledge but that doesn't mean it is real, reproducable, or novel. There is a reason why scrutiny exists.