Also, would those 550k Blackwell have good FP64 performance? How would one even compare them?

I’ve worked on several systems that had enough flop/s to make it in the top 5-10, but for which we never submitted benchmarks. Sometimes their backend network layout technically would make them several smaller clusters for an HPL run, sometimes it’s because the cluster is too heterogeneous to get a good benchmark result, and sometimes it’s because the employer wants to keep a low profile.

Most of the time, it just that it’s a hassle. It takes a while to prep and tune a big hero run for benchmarking, and if you spend a billion dollars on a cluster, it’s making you a lot more than that. Taking it down for a day or two stops the money printers.

Why would the scientific computing people want to tip their hand? It’s an open secret that the main point of these mammoth FP64 compute machines is to simulate nuclear weapons detonations to comply with the CTBT you’d think that crowd would really not be fans of broadcasting their capabilities.

Cloud computing is not a supercomputer. Different architecture, bandwitch, interconnectivity and latencies.

I wonder if there would have been an opportunity to generate some finer-grained benchmarks with something like BiCGStab+ILU (or maybe CG+incomplete cholesky). Instead of CG+Gauss Seidel. The pitch being, you might have made different memory vs compute trade-offs with designing your cluster, but you should be able to select a fill-in factor for the preconditioner to suit it.

GPUs are for graphics (the G in GPU). These systems are used for more general computations.

It is likely that those cores are dedicated to unrelated management, monitoring, and administrative tasks. This is common and many workloads are throttled on bandwidth anyway. For the purposes of the benchmark, those cores are not participating in the workload.

Yield. Some fraction of cores had a speck of dust or something, but at 38/40 good cores per chip they got economical yield

TOP500 can be done with inexpensive silicon. It is more about a willingness to aggregate enough hardware in one place. As a benchmark, it tells you almost nothing about computing power or scalability for other applications because it doesn't exercise the bottlenecks most high-scale applications have.

We're too busy regulating the tech, not granting access to US engineers and companies, arguing against power and data centers, stopping skilled immigration.

This is absolutely going to bite us in the face in five to ten years.

Yes, they should score well on Linpack as long as they use Ozaki emulation.