<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 08/04/2015 08:50 PM, Christopher Samuel wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55C15DCB.9040003@unimelb.edu.au" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 05/08/15 00:52, Prentice Bisbal wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Seriously? Why does IBM have to make everything so difficult?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
As I understand it Power BQC is the SoC (so CPU, networking, etc),
whereas A2 is the CPU core & instruction set. So it's a fair
distinction (though one that is often glossed over in practice).</pre>
</blockquote>
Okay. That makes perfect sense, but I will still argue that if that
correct, using that terminology in the Top500 list doesn't make
sense. An SoC is equivalent to a motherboard, but for regular
Intel/AMD systems, they list the processor model, not the
motherboard, so to list BQC instead of POWER A2 for the BG systems
is inconsistent. As an example, compare the Sequoia description from
the Top500 list to Stampede, which is just a regular x86 system:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://top500.org/system/177556"><b>Sequoia</b>:
BlueGene/Q, Power BQC 16C 1.60 GHz, Custom,</a><br>
IBM<br>
<br>
<a href="http://top500.org/system/177931"><b>Stampede</b>: PowerEdge
C8220, Xeon E5-2680 8C 2.700GHz, Infiniband FDR, Intel Xeon Phi
SE10P,</a><br>
Dell<br>
<br>
Prentice<br>
</body>
</html>