There's a bit of drama in that there are unofficial reports of two systems in China with higher performance [0], the arXiv paper listed below talks about a 40 million core system with around double theoretical performance than Frontier, and there's apparently a second system online with similar performance. I personally suspect that they didn't submit benchmarks to the top500 simply because those don't run well enough in the systems
Looking at the data in your second link, the performances differ by less than 3%. Looks like paulmd’s assertion that both are the same cpu core is fairly well supported by the data.
It's not similar at all. AMD's cores are 10-20% slower while Niagara was 80-90% slower. And AMD isn't intentionally slower; they designed the Zen core for maximum single-thread performance but they just didn't do as good a job as Intel because their budget is vastly smaller.
That is true, perhaps its a difference in drivers and operating systems?. it hard to tell if the benchmark is bad without having the same setup to test against because anything could impact it really.
Can be very different. I recently benchmarked it with a simple python based benchmark (as I use python most often) and in some cases the differences were even 2x.
These were coming mostly from the fact that some providers updated to the latest gen AMD chips which was making big difference compared to 3-4 yr old Intel chips.
That being said, note that the software is also different on the two computers.
reply