"Tom Marchant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Yes, you did say that, but also, > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:06:01 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: > > > >The mainframe MPU *is* slower than other platforms .... > > Itanium likely could emulate zArch instructions faster than > >native zSeries systems can execute them...
Yes, and obviously I was wrong. There was an interesting speculation several years ago about POWER being used in mainframes because it could do emulation as fast, or faster, than a native mainframe processor, hence my own speculation. Part of the problem, as has been mentioned, is that many of the instructions are designed for completely different purposes. However, what I was talking about as far as it being slower is the raw CPU speed for integer/floating point operations. > > Then, > > > >If you have any published numbers to verify that, it would be very nice to > >see them. The pace of improvements in the x86 world are quite stunning, > >because of the competitive nature of things. I find it hard to believe > >that IBM would spend the money for mainframe processors to keep pace when > >there isn't really much of an incentive to do so. Again, if there are any > >reliable comparisons between these processors, it would be great to see > >them. Otherwise, all we have are assertions. I see nothing at all wrong with asking for information. > > First of all, Itanium is not "in the x86 world." I know very well that Itanium is not an x86 processor, however it does compete head-to-head with x86 in many markets so it *is* in the x86 world, and has to keep pace with the performance of those. The fact that it did not early on (and still struggles with it today) is one of the big reasons it has been more-or-less a flop in the market. >Secondly, you have obviously not > been keeping up with the improvements in mainframe technology over the last > several years. Those improvements are indeed quite stunning. Far > from "keeping pace," mainframe technology has been leading. Now I would like to get some specifics from you, since you've made the statement. Can you point me to references that show mainframe technology has been leading - not in RAS or features, but in performance (which is the context of the discussion)? Is that comment with regards to other platforms, or only within the mainframe market? Does 'mainframe technology' mean something other than performance, or are you including the entire set of platform improvements? Regards, Dean > > -- > Tom Marchant > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
