[belter]

My algorithm is single threaded :-)

Multiplying the number of processors by the clock speed of the processors, and then multiplying that product by the number of floating-point operations the processors can perform in one second, as done for supercomputers FLOPS, does not help me :-)

[jabl]

> My algorithm is single threaded :-)

And why should your algorithm be the benchmark for supercomputer performance, rather than something that is at least somewhat related [1] to the workloads those machines run?

[1] We can of course argue endlessly that HPL is no longer a very representative benchmark for supercomputer workloads, but I digress.

[belter]

My initial argument since the beginning of this thread, is that it's the most powerful computer not the fastest, as it will not be, for the case for some single threaded task. Not really sure what is so controversial about it...:-)

[chrisseaton]

> as it will not be, for the case for some single threaded task

Nobody but you is confused about this.

[belter]

It's not confusion, is about clarifying that "fast" is contextual...

[chrisseaton]

Why would you run a single-threaded algorithm on a supercomputer?

[_Wintermute]

You say this, but unfortunately I've encountered a few life-scientists who think their single threaded R code will run faster because they've requested 128 cores and 4 GPUs.

[belter]

Because some say they are fastest computers in the world ;-)

[chrisseaton]

I think you're possibly misunderstanding what these supercomputers are for. They just aren't designed for whatever single-threaded workload you personally have, so it's not in scope.

[belter]

It is clear for me what they are for, and why I would not use it for a single-threaded task.

I was trolling a little bit, the people who downvoted my measure of speed :-) because the millions of FLOPS of a supercomputer, will help for parallel tasks but will not be "faster" for a common use case.

So fastest computer is one thing, most powerful is another.

[O5vYtytb]

"fastest" is accurate. You can get more computation work done in less time given an appropriate workload. No matter what adjective you use, "fastest" or "powerful", you're always within a context of an intended workload.

Your argument is a bit like saying the fastest land speed vehicle isn't really the fastest because you can't go to the grocery store with it.

[stonogo]

You don't get to call the supercar slow because your driver doesn't know how to change gears.

[blackoil]

More than your algorithm, seems you are on the wrong thread.