[Beowulf] Register article on Opteron - disagree
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
john.hearns at clustervision.com john.hearns at clustervision.comSat Nov 20 15:34:30 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] Register article on Opteron - disagree
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I spotted this article on The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/19/amd_top500_loss/ As someone who has installed Opteron clusters, including what I believe was the first in the UK (used for computational chemistry, and going strong), I disagree with this article. Opteron are alive and kicking. What's more the article confuses 'supercomputer' with '(super)computer in the Top 500' and also makes no mention of EMT64/Nocona. The artcle says Xeon/Itanium, then goes on to talk about 32 bit Xeon. The fact that there are fewer Opteron based systems in the Top 500 is irrefutable (I didn't know this) but it makes me uneasy to extrapolate this to the impending death of a CPU. I DO agree (and let's have some debate here) that Nocona is bound to make big inroads.
- Previous message: [Beowulf] torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Next message: [Beowulf] Register article on Opteron - disagree
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
