"Tom Marchant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:53:39 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: > > > > .... Since Intel is > >already on 45nm process, I don't think you can call 90nm 'leading in > >technology'. > > "Already?" when will they begin shipments? They say 2H2007. The z9 has > been shipping since September, 2005.
As I said - you seem to be arguing just to argue. Intel began shipping 90nm products in Feb. 2004, but that really isn't the point. Process size is not an indicator of performance, or feature set. > > I guess you don't think much of SOI or copper either. It has not been shown that either of these provides any benefit in performance, and has nothing at all to do with feature size. It was supposed to help with leakage, but Intel seems to be doing quite will without these. Lest you misunderstand me - I am not trying to say that Intel is 'better' than IBM, nor the other way around. I am not trying to say that x86 processors are 'better' than z9. Each has its strengths, and weaknesses. There is no 'one processor to rule them all'. However, IBM is positioning the mainframe to compete in some of the same markets that x86 competes. This means that customers will expect a direct comparison on performance - and rightly so. Using the argument that IBM is a leader in technology, and therefore z9 must be better than x86 is ludicrous, if that was your point. AMD is an IBM partner, and they use the same process technology - so this *cannot* be a reason z9 has any advantage over x86, and vice-versa. As far as the largest semiconductor manufacturers in the world, Intel is #1, with Samsung, TI, Toshiba and STmicro rounding out the top 5. IBM isn't listed in the top 10 list. AMD was listed as #7 as of Dec 2006, so the two leading x86 manufacturers are in the top 10. This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with whether any given product is a better performer than any other. I mentioned that I find it hard to believe that IBM would invest in mainframe performance to the extent that x86 manufacturers would, considering the difference in the competitivness of the markets. It was stated that IBM invests $1.2B annually on mainframe R&D (hardware, software and services). Intel, on the other hand, spends almost $6B on their semiconductor business alone. It should not be surprising that Intel is also a leader in technology - even if their primary product is the lowly x86 based processors. As for fault-tolerant systems, Stratus and NEC offer them (and likely others). I have had correspondence with one of the main architects of Stratus systems, and his background includes working for DEC on their fault-tolerant systems. Their website claims 99.9997% uptime, and they include many of the features that mainframers might consider unique to mainframes - using Xeon processors. The I/O performance that was once the realm of the mainframe is now available for other platforms as well. Consider that IBM uses fibre-channel and 3.5" FBA devices, just like everyone else - and emulate CKD for the mainframe. PCI/E and SATA provide error recovery capabilities. So, while the mainframe still enjoys a relatively comfortable niche, I don't think mainframers should be too smug about it. x86 processors are not just good for word processing, despite some comments to that effect. Making snide, derogatory remarks about x86 or other platforms is just as foolish as PC people making derogatory comments about the mainframe. It would be nice if people would post information that would further the dialog rather than simply to defend a position. I don't expect IBM, or IBM employees, to post information that is not already public - which is why I requested published numbers and comparisons, if there are any. I've been working with mainframes since 1976, and x86 based systems since about 1992. I'm certainly not a hardware engineer, and am no authority on all of the ins and outs of the various strengths and weaknesses of each platform. What I do find a little tiresome are the assertions and derogations about various platforms based upon 'common wisdom' rather than verifiable information. Yes, I occasionally find myself repeating some of this nonsense, but I hope I've shown that when the data is presented I'm willing to accept the facts and reform my opinions. I hope others can do likewise. Regards, Dean ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
