On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:49:13 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: > >>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)?
I did. On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:17:55 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote: > >Actually, IBM is an acknowledged leader in processor design and >microelectronics technology. > >I would suggest you read some of the articles in >http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd51-12.html . >Particularly, http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/511/mayer.html . > >For some additional background, see >http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd50-45.html >http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd48-34.html >http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd46-45.html > >You might think that 1.7 GHz is slow when you hear about Intel processor >clock rates, but z/Architecture is considerably more complex than any Intel >processor. It is quite remarkable that such a large and complex processor >is able to achieve a cycle time that is equivalent to the time that it takes >light to travel about 7 inches. > Some specifics: 90-nm in the z9 SOI Copper wiring You could do the research if you wanted to. -- 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
