Talk:High-performance computing

Notes

I'm concerned that people are incorrectly using the term High Performance Computing now to generate hype over products that are unrelated. I recently read an article where a gentleman was talking about HPC in the cloud. The fact that someone plans to use the regular internet to compile complex analytical data removes the High Performance out of the scenario thus no longer making the term HPC stick, or super computing for that matter. Here's a link to the article: http://insidehpc.com/2011/01/22/whitepaper-to-the-cloud-windows-hpc-server-with-windows-azure/ Greg | [User talk:Greg|talk]] 11:54, 25 Jul 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.108.96 (talk)

Shouldn't this just redirect to supercomputer? There seem to be 100% overlap, ie "High Performance Computing" is just a buzzword for supercomputing. Thue | talk 16:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think there should also be some discussion of using programmable CPUs (FPGAs, and GPUs etc), instead of generic 'pizza-box' servers, and blades etc. Where do start? --Richard@lbrc.org 10:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there some compelling reason why "high-performance technical computing" is sufficiently different from "high-performance computing" that the former would be deemed to deserve its own page (even though said page doesn't exist), by virtue of a Wikilink to it from this page? Guy Harris 22:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I too think that this article and Supercomputer should be merged. The new article should probably be called "Supercomputing". -Olegos 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not quite agree with the idea of merging this article with the page on Supercomputers. Technically, the term Supercomputer is used to refer to the 500 or so fastest computers in the world. People in general tend to confuse parallel machines with supercomputers. While all of today's supercomputers are parallel machines, the converse is not true. For example, the Sun Fire E15K is a parallel machine, but even at its full capacity of 106 processors, it would not qualify to be a supercomputer today. This does not mean the E15K is not used for High Performance Computing (HPC). Grid Computing, which is a fast upcoming field, falls under the category of HPC. The goal of Grid Computing is to create a worldwide network of computational power, storage space and databases, that a user can seamlessly plug into. Supercomputers around the world may be a *part* of the Grid, but there will be much more the the Grid than just those 500-odd leviathans. In summary, HPC is not just about Supercomputers. So, it would not be entirely right to merge the two articles. Albert Antony 19:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

no not really

i dont agree with adding the HPC to the supercomputing.though supercomputing is an elegant idea this is ever nore an elegant idea.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.88.67.91 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

reverted deleted links and categories by 193.48.220.14

I don't see why this information was removed by the anonymous editor, so I reverted to the previous revision. The top500 site is definately worth having here, and the Windows HPC site is just as relevant as the linux HPC site, which wasn't removed. JSBillings 12:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe linux HPC or Windows HPC site could be cited? I've never used the term "HPC" personall, and in fact, came to this wikipedia article trying to sort it out (after seing the term HPC in a technical article) --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed several links to HPC sites

I removed three supercomputing sites from the list, since they weren't links to resources about HPC as a topic. I don't think this article isn't intended to be a list of HPC or Supercomputer sites. -- JSBillings 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

About utilizing GPU:s in HPC

Could someone with adequate expertise write about GPU:s on HPC? The subject seems interesting, but I can't find info (nor examples nor results) anywhere except the GPU manufacturers. 130.233.158.112 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Folding@home for certain (even runs on PS3s) --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, here's something you can cite / quote I suppose (going to bed, probably will forget to come back and add it myself... not to mention I'm neither a GPU nor an HPC expert)

"The push here is to drive the idea of the video card as a computing platform in its own right, out of the supercomputer/HPC arena and into the home. If such a drive just happens to sell more GPUs, or leads to higher attach rates for discrete cards, well, that'd be ok, too." {{cite web |title=ATI: DX11, 40nm GPUs on track for a 2009 launch |date=October 05, 2008 |url=http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081005-ati-dx11-40nm-gpus-on-track-for-a-2009-launch.html }}

Note: probably a proper reflist to go with a citation / quote like that one would be good. --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations / original research

Was just browsing around, realized this stub-ish article lacked citations. Perhaps a merge proposal as previously suggested? (with the supercomputer article) --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing of value here. Will just redirect it to Supercomputer, given that I have cleaned that one up now. History2007 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)