"AMD Powers World's Fastest Computers, but Intel Holds Majority"

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-...mputers-but-Intel-Holds-Majority-115013.shtml

Could we say that IBM is first, not only due to the "6562 dual-core AMD Opteron processors", but also due to the "12,240 IBM Cell chips"?

But, AMD Opteron is a great CPU. After all, the second place "Cray Jaguar XT5 supercomputer" uses "a total of 37,544 AMD's Quad-Core Opteron processors..."

What do you think?

 

I think the Softpedia article is a poorly written example of lousy IT journalism written not for information exchange but for sensationalism! Note the title of the original article - Top Two Slots on Newest TOP500 List of Supercomputers Unchanged, but New Systems in Germany, Saudi Arabia are Shaking Things Up - with nothing about Intel until the 8th paragraph, and not until the 11th paragraph does AMD appear.

To your comment about IBM, note how the top Roadrunner Supercomputer uses a hybrid design with an IBM cell processor attached to each CPU core to boost the capability of the CPU. I am not sure that says anything good for AMD - especially when the 2nd place computer needs 6 times as many AMD CPUs at 37,544 (and these are quads vs. duals too!) and has 300TB of RAM - and no IBM cell processors.

I think any statistic can be spun to make anything look good, even if only from a narrow focal point.

I think it does say something the two fastest use AMDs and not Intels. I just don't know what it says. There are too many unanswered questions.

Fastest doing what? Crunching Pi?

Why were AMDs used? Which model? Was that specific AMD chosen because it was the fastest CPU on the market? Or (as commonly practiced in plain old home and office PCs) were AMDs used because they did not bust the budgets? Did they have unlimited budgets? Did buying cheaper allow for more of the budget to go towards 300Terabytes!!! of RAM? RAM does have something to do with performance, after all. I think the issue of budget is important since the majority of these very top systems appear to be owned by publicly funded institutions - that is, by taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I want the best return on my money - fastest in benchmarks does not necessarily mean best return on the investment - considering these computers will be assigned real tasks, and not just drag racing other computers.

That said, I think AMD should take it, run with it, and milk it for all it can. Since Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo, Intels have been the recognized CPU of choice in terms of performance, power consumption, and heat generation. AMDs, with just a couple exceptions, just don't compete - except in price. Quality is not an issue - both make excellent CPUs and fine reliable bases for any computer.