Talk:Fugaku (supercomputer)

Dongarra report

Seems the page is now still being translated from Japanese Wikipedia. However, Dongarra's report should be considered as a good source of information in English (in fact reports are written by him for many past Top500 systems): https://www.dropbox.com/s/aqntdb43p6so0z5/fugaku-report.pdf?dl=0 Billyauhk (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Add it in! All I would say reference the TOP500 website as well (https://top500.org/news/report-fujitsu-fugaku-system-jack-dongarra/) which will give more credibility to a Dropbox file. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• See if I can put some time on it soon. BTW this will be a more "good-looking" link of the same report (at least it is now easy to see the report is from academia): https://www.icl.utk.edu/files/publications/2020/icl-utk-1379-2020.pdf Billyauhk (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Comparison - needed?

I'm not quite clear what the table adds in the comparison. It just adds information found in other articles, that is kept more up to date there. Further it seems to list predicted / wishlist specs for future computers which I don't think is helpful. Thoughts? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the introduction to the comparison. In the table I trimmed out the machines that don't actually exist. However reading the table when examined closely the headings used make no sense - or are skewed to some sort of agenda. If we are making it by TOP500 criteria we should limit to computers that have been number 1 on the top criteria list (removes Sierra computer) - however the Blue Gene Q and Titan have not been included. If there is no dissent I might just delete this and write something to compare it to Summit and TaihuLight. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The comparison is needed because the cost of the Japanese supercomputers are controversy over years.It looks you just want to delete the truth you don't like. Do you work for this supercomputer?Cemetery (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Very strawaman attack to accuse me of working for the company. It's not deletion of the truth. I don't work for anyone involved in making this. You can't make an honest comparison against things that don't exist. Also if you don't put in the other number 1 ranked computers for comparison it is a selective version of the "truth". The introduction is repetitive as well. Why don't I try and make a better comparison text? Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made a cost section - have a look. Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced category

@Master of Ninja: your edit summary claims that "Category:Petascale computers" is sourced, but you do not mention which reference it is, and fails WP:CATV because it is not mentioned in the text. Do not expect readers or editors to go clicking through every source to verify the categories, they must be supported directly in the article, per WP:CATV. Elizium23 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Master Of Ninja: Elizium23 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What we're looking for here is a source that can be cited that says "Fugaku is a petascale computer". The current citation says it does X petaflops. It's WP:SYNTH to say that's petascale. Just find the right source. It can't be rocket science. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not WP:SYNTH. It's the meaning of the word petascale. We don't need a source to use standard English words in accordance with their uncontroversial definitions. It's comparable to describing someone as a millionaire based on a source that says their net worth is $20 million. In the future, when a source is easily found, add it yourself rather than spamming tags to shift the work to others. 76.11.103.158 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)