Talk:High-performance computing

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]