On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:21:28 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: >"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.
Personal attacks are unwarranted. Process size is a limiting factor for performance. >> >> 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, How can you say that? Haven't you read the literature? The fact is that both of these do provide performance benefits. >and has nothing at all to do with feature size. Didn't you just say that process (feature) size is not an indicator of performance? >It was >supposed to help with leakage, but Intel seems to be doing quite will >without these. As Timothy pointed out, Intel is in fact using copper. Has been for years. >Lest you misunderstand me - I am not trying to say that Intel is 'better' >than IBM, nor the other way around. That's right, you didn't say "better". You said "faster". More precisely, you said, "The mainframe MPU *is* slower than other processor platforms." > ... However, IBM is positioning >the mainframe to compete in some of the same markets that x86 competes. What do you mean by that? Are you talking about Linux on z? Or are you talking about the larger servers that are being constructed from 86 processors in the hope of competing with mainframes? > >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. I most certainly didn't say that, and I think you know it. Red herrings are not rational arguments. > >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. IBM invests where the money is. The mainframe business is a profitable one. >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. Yes, Intel is another leader in the semiconductor industry. Not, IMO, in computer architectures, though. The iAPX 432 was a notable exception. >As for fault-tolerant systems, Stratus and NEC offer them (and likely >others). Tandem was first with real fault tolerance as we know it today. >The I/O performance that was once the realm of the mainframe is now >available for other platforms as well. There's another assertion. Have you any data to back it up? What kind of I/O bandwidth can these systems handle? A z9 has from 16 to 64 STI busses, each capable of transferring 2.7 Gbytes/second. >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. Please do, if you have any data. So far you have provided precious little. > ... 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. I don't know why you're telling us that. As it happens I have you beat. I started programming on System/360 in 1970. In 1986 I was writing x86 assembler code. Starting in 1976 I was designing and building hardware for a 6502 based system, as well as writing 6502 assembler code. I've spent a lot of time evaluating processor architectures. Today, I work full time developing z/Architecture system code. > What I >do find a little tiresome are the assertions and derogations about various >platforms based upon 'common wisdom' rather than verifiable information. So do I. I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertions. And, by the way, the SPECjbb that you keep mentioning is purely a CPU benchmark. It is designed to run without performing any I/O. I don't think there's anyone who buys a mainframe for its sheer processing power. -- 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
