User talk:Kenthruth

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Itanium graph
HI!

I reverted your edit to Itanium, not because I disagree, but because you apper to have inadvertantly edited the reference section instead of the actual text.

As it happens, I also think you are not quite correct. the graph show teh percentage of systems in the Top500, not the percentage of total Rmax. We could perhaps maks a statement to that effect. How do you feel about a change to the caption of the graph? -Arch dude (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks Arch Dude:

I'm still confused about the chart. The data shows that Power has 41% share, with 209 of 500 systems, 47% of the Rmax(Sum) 48% of RpeakS(Sum), with 43% of Processor Sum. There's nothing in the data that supports less than 40% share of anything, with the Graphic showing less than 20%. Where is the raw data that supports this graphic? I think a Rmax Sum is a better metric for How much Horsepower a company has in the Top500, rather than # of systems. Is it correct that the bottom 100 systems, combined aren't as powerful as #1 or 2....?

Would you agree?

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/31/vendors

IBM 209 41.80 % 5583661 8390213 1403596 Totals 500 100% 11700016.97 17445379.70 2414219


 * I now understand your confusion. Your link is to the vendor share, not the processor type share. IBM has 209 systems, but many of these sytems use Xeons, not POWER. Here is the link for share by processor type:
 * http://www.top500.org/stats/list/31/procfam
 * This (I think) exactly matches the chart in the article. -Arch dude (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)