From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The discussion of the list of the world's most powerful computing sites as compared to the Top 500 list is POV and lacks cites for its claims and should be altered to NPOV or cut. Tdewey 06:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a discussion, it is fact, since i was the author of the list, i am stating the facts first hand. Gunter 11:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Provide a cite, even if it is to your own blog or drop it. Tdewey 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

POWER to Power[edit]

I will change the references to POWER to Power since this term encompasses both POWER and PowerPC, and Cell (when Cell based supercomputers show up in this list). IBM POWER is "just" POWER3/4/5. PowerPC 970 and the BlueGene/L-processors ain't POWER, but all three are Power Architecture. -- Henriok 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think IBM POWER-based supercomputers should stay linekd to IBM POWER, and Cell-based supercomputers should just link to Cell. Why generalize at the cost of usefulness, especially since Cell makes a huge difference in the field? -- intgr 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would become to diverse. POWER5, PowerPC 970 and BG/L belong to the same family, the Power Architecture.. not POWER. It certainly was wrong before. BG/L is not POWER, it's PowerPC. I think the usefulness is enhanced by the generalization. itself makes this caregorization (link). Perhaps we could do a combination, write the exact kind of processor, and the corresponding family (Power, Itanium, Xeon, Opteron, SPARC and so forth)? -- Henriok 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it was incorrect before and if the official TOP500 list classifies them all into the Power architecture then I guess this is the right way to go. If my two cents is worth anything, though, I would certainly like to see Cell-based supercomputers clearly distinguished from usual Power-based ones. -- intgr 21:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can live with that. Cell is special. I'm really looking forward to seeing them on the list. -- Henriok 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This article states: "For the first time in the history of the TOP500 project (since 1993), the top Japanese system is not manufactured in Japan itself."

This sentence really ought to be referenced. I'd be curious to know where the manufacturing is done, if not in Japan (which is by far the world's leader in high-tech manufacturing). Just because the brand name of a product might be American doesn't mean that the product is manufactured in the U.S. these days. A lot of high-tech products' key enabling components are made in Japan these days, such as the Apple iPod. Other products, such as Boeing's upcoming Dreamliner are actually more of a Japanese product than American these days (some 70 percent of the Dreamliner will be made in Japan, including the ultra-sophisticated wings).

Removing the "more sources" tag[edit]

I am removing the "more sources" tag. We only need one source: the external link to the "top 500" site itself. This site is universally cited in the supercomputer community, and has been maintained by two separate major universities in two countries for more than a decade. If that is not good enough, then please place a comment here to explain what would be good enough. I do not wish to appear contentious. Instead, I truly want an explanation of what we need to cite to ensure that any ressonable editor would accept as a reference. I realize that not all editors are familiar with the supercomputer community (loosely defined) and may not realize that TOP500 is now the defacto definition for "supercomputer." Thanks. -Arch dude 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Nice initiative. -- Henriok 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


if this is about top 500 supercomputers, where's the list of the other 490 ones? Jernejl 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The website, was, about 10-15years ago a good site. there actually were 500 machines listed. web archive has some lists...

no idea if a list of 500 is possible now, it is a terrible site to navigate these days.

Dire need for Criticisms section[edit]

In my opinion, this article is in dire need of a Criticisms section. In fact, someone ought to write an article titled "How the Top 500 List is Destroying Supercomputing". There is less and less relationship between Linpack performance and achievement of actual science. Many supercomputers are bought and configured simply to get a high Linpack number, tremendously wasting the taxpayer money spent on them. This problem has risen to scandalous proportions. Westwind273 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A plug for MDGRAPE-3  ? Find someone notable who says what you say because I question your claim. Given HPL benchmarks floating point operations which are kind of useful across a wide variety of tasks, any effort to get high floating-point results is a good thing that is broadly appealing. Much better to spend taxpayers money on complex simulations of say bombs than trying destructive testing of the same. Ttiotsw 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

See the article Also, NPOV warnings are meant to placed on the article itself, not on the talk page. I have removed the one you placed on this section. Westwind273 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm...I have not placed any tags here. See here. On the other hand the news article you link to is dated from 2004 and Seymour Cray (if still alive) would say why the NEC got the top prize - because they were using vector processing whilst the US Gov. focused on scalar processing. It even says ... "and for another, a system that can't get a high Linpack won't do well on other tests,". So basically there is absolutely NO information content in that link: it is a 3 year old ZDNet 'troll' article. Ttiotsw 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you would like a more recent article, read the first three paragraphs of People that need to get real science done with their supercomputers don't evaluate them with Linpack. Westwind273 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article at "In practice, the success of an installation is rarely measured by the performance of applications, but by the Linpack performance of the solution. Customers are often eager to be "on the list" or, lacking better tools and a vocabulary to talk about the effectiveness of a deployment in any other terms, simply focus on the one measure they can specify. Vendors who don't respond to this customer focus lose procurements, so prices get pushed down and designs are increasingly based on commodity technologies." --Westwind273 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


"Rmax" and "Rpeak" are used as table column headers, but are not explained. -- Beland 05:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New Number Ones[edit]

K computer? IBM Sequoia? Cray Titan?

It is called Ranger with it's 504 teraflops.[1]

They only rank the Top500 list twice a year. There probably are several systems that will battle for the #1 spot but are yet to be announced. -- Henriok (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Alas, Ranger entered at #4, with two new systems and the former reigning champion beating it. -- Henriok (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been upgraded (, and now peaks at 580Tflops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Page to Edit[edit]

Given that most of this page is very specific to each year i have decided to create a new page at TOP500/2007 to make edits to this years list. I think this will be best until someone can rewrite the speicifc sections to reperesent this year instead of giving two halfs of different stories. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

TOP500/2007 Now contains the updated list of Top 10 Super Computers. Before Being copied here though the information around it needs to be changed in order to prevent misleading information. I won't move it now because i am unsure how long it will be sat here before someone else updates it. Please check that page before rushing ahead with edits here. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
TOP500/2007 has Highlights from the Top 10 and General highlights from the Top 500 since the last edition sections updated from official TOP500 site by copying all text on source site. Last Wikipedia version was a subset of source. Please edit as appropriate. ConradPino 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Backed myself into a bit of a hole here. 2007 page seems pretty much about only 2007 list, if in serious need of some rewrites. I don't know how to copy it without losing Contribution history though. -- Jimmi Hugh 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see only 2 contributors so far, you and I. I'm not concerned with Contribution history loss. Conrad T. Pino 08:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

French Illustrations?[edit]

The 2 graphs near the top of this page are both written in French. I think it might be a good idea to remove them and replace them with new, English illustrations. These French graphs, especially the second one, are mostly useless as it's hard to understand technical terms in French. The second one is very difficult to understand, as people without a basic understanding of French will be unable to understand which country is which. I'm hesitant to take them down, however, until someone can find an alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBoulden (talkcontribs) 00:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a slightly improved (vectorized) version of the first graph, with the labels translated into English. I tried to stay as close to the original as possible but I think it can still be improved (at least by updating the data, maybe by using a log scale). However, as I don't know much about supercomputers, it would be good if someone could check that one first. For example, does it make sense to include BOINC and Folder@home in the graph? Where can I get good data on these projects? Once we have a stable version of that graph, I will update the R code to commons so that it can be easily updated/modified/translated in the future. I also removed the second graph. The bar graph representing computational power per country could probably be recreated in a vector format but I think that the pie chart makes no sense at all. GL (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Moore's Law[edit]

The article says the performance increased with Moore's Law, but that idea refers to the number of transistors, not performance. Has the total number of transistors in the #1 spot doubled every 18 months? -kslays (talkcontribs) 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

request for discussion on creation of a page of previous Top500 lists[edit]

The link created to the page called Top500/2007 now leads to this article. I think it would helpful to have the page Top500/2007 and a page for Top500/2008. While there are some references to rankings of different supercomputers in previous years, there is no longer a complete list of the information historically, and I think it would be useful to be able to see the historical rankings and the way computers are moving up and down the list, and new ones popping onto the lists. Unfortunately, I do not have that historical information, or I would be willing to put up the top ten lists for the pages.

Please discuss establishing at least the Top500/2007 and Top500/2008 list page. Alternatively, create the page Historical Top500 supercomputer ranking which would incorporate 2007 and 2008, since from the names in this discussion it sound like people who know/have access to those lists are still actively maintaining this Top500 page. An advantage to actually creating one page Historical Top500 supercomputer ranking would be that if people knew Top500 lists from additional previous years they could also enter those lists to make the page more and more historically useful.Gramery (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I think it's best to have the lists on the same page. Please also note that it's a bi-annual list. All required data is readily available on the Top500 homepage at least back to June 2005. -- Henriok (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
What would be a good name? Previous Top500 Lists? Historical Top500 Lists? I looked at the top500 homepage, so I can access the information, but I have never created a page before. I can work on the project in January 2010.- Gramery (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
TOP500 lists or TOP500 (history) are my sugestions. Just click on either link to begin creating you article. You can probably copy&paste the previous 5-6 lists from the archive on this page. -- Henriok (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tianhe-1A reaches 2.507 petaflops[edit]

Tianhe-1A should not appear on any Top500 related pages until the system is officially listed at Just because news came out, it does not belong in top500 related pages until its officially listed.

At 2.507 petaflops, it is faster than Jaguar,

The article links to Tianhe-1 as the world's fastest supercomputer, but in fact it is Tianhe-1A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The official top 500 list is released twice per year. Mention of Tianhe-1A (hit the news on 2010-10-28) does not belong at the table showing the results as of June 2010 (2010-05-31). Please find a more appropriate place to post that information. When the official numbers come out in November, that will be the appropriate time for that computer to show up in this section. 06:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjj31337 (talkcontribs)

It's up. Nov 2010. Tiranhe is a GO![edit]

Let the edits flow. –– Henriok (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Does TOP stand for anything? If so, that should be explained. If not, and it's just the word "top", the term should not be capitalized as if it were an acronym, no matter what its boosters do (remember, they're boosters; Wikipedia is not). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

top countries[edit]

The graph labeled "top countries" needs more information: The numbers represent the number of computers in the top 500 that are in the given countries, but this is not state. Also 09, etc. are unclear: they could be dates of the months; so they should be written as full years, e.g., 2009. (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unusual (new) computers? Non-Linux..[edit]

See the section: Linux range of use#Linux for supercomputers (my recent edits) and Linux#Servers, mainframes and supercomputers. The latter has old info saying Linux runs on most powerful 44. There is at least one new ranked 10 (see my recent edits at this page). If number 45 to X are all Linux based can I safely say that all X most powerful run Linux? I'm just too lazy to comb the list.. There is at least only one Windows (one fewer than in June). Is there a list of just the new computers (or upgraded ones?)

Anyone know what the one Unix, non-AIX OS is? There are three SPARC, have there ever been one running Sun/Oracle's OSes? Would it be HP-UX, if I do want to comb the list? The one "mixed" one, seems to be the one marked "Cell OS", using an Intel CPU. An error? See, inline comments in the first section I pointed to. comp.arch (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

New Graphs[edit]

I get what you were trying to do, attempting to make it easier to read for those that are colourblind, but right now it is kinda painful to look at, and some of it is so small and hard to read as to almost be useless (especially the top countries one). Does anyone have any suggestions on how to further improve it? I feel where it is right now is not quite there yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we need new visualization of the numbers. I suggest that we use the plots produced on the official website here. Hopechen (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TOP500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Graph is very misleading (and needs an update)[edit]

This graph, included in the article, is really misleading.

Countries with TOP500 supercomputers.svg

The y-axis should reach from 0 to 500. As it is, it appears that the USA don't have many supercomputers, but they actually had over 200.

Also, the distribution has changed a lot since 2015. (China now has the most supercomputers). Needs an update. Does anyone here know how to edit an SVG? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 05:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also Indonesia and Germany are represented with the same pattern and colour Daiyusha (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditto Canada and Oman. This is fun! -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TOP500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

NDMC link in "See also" section seems irrelevant, biased[edit]

Hey folks, throwaway account here.

While doing a wiki walk on supercomputers, I noticed that the "See also" section contains a link to the NDMC Russian military supercomputer, alongside a questionably phrased "most powerfull (sic) military supercomputer" description.

I question the relevance of the link (much like I would question a link like "USA most powerful military supercomputer"), compared to the other ones in the section. Not to mention that I question the neutrality of the author, who seems to be the main author of the linked page and (woo, ad hominem) seems to have been involved in NPOV/edit warring bans in the past.

The "most powerful military supercomputer" phrasing has been removed from the NDMC page this month, and I'm wondering whether it would make sense to revert the edit that added the NDMC link in the section altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cijrlnksj (talkcontribs) 12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the link, based on WP:BOLD and especially since I'll forget about this account/page soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cijrlnksj (talkcontribs) 13:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


For your information, TOP500 published the following release: "TOP500 list refreshed, US edged out of third place", TOP500, 19 June 2017 (page visited on 19 June 2017). (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC).

Ranking of Countries by Total Computing Power (Both Networked and Non-Networked)[edit]

Forgive me if I have missed anything in the article in what I state below:

The current "Distribution of supercomputers in the TOP500 list by country (June 2016)" only states the total number of supercomputers possessed by each country within the TOP500 LIST BUT does not indicate the total Computing 'Capability' (in flops) possessed by each country. Ideally, there would be 2 separate lists, one indicating total FLOP capacity per country AND one indicating total NETWORKED FLOP capacity by country. This would presumably lead to different rankings. Of course, there's a lot of information that both lists would NOT indicate (such as how this Computing Capability is marshalled and utilised and how it fits into a larger, say, strategic, military, economic or psychological paradigm/context) which would presumably require a different form of analysis and information which may not be on the internet.

I will endeavour to consider making sense of the figures at : to see whether I can produce a (Very Basic) visual representation of total Flop Capacity Per Country. This does not constitute anything approaching a promise. ASavantDude (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)