"Tom Marchant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:51:48 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: > > >... As I said, Intel, for > >example, does not use SOI and seems to be producing very high clockrate > >devices without it, which (currently) outperform their rival AMD, > > Another assertion without data to back it up. I hope you are not talking > about clock rates.
The only one who has *ever* talked about clock rates has been you. If, as you have asserted, you are familiar with various platforms then this information should not come as any surprise to you at all. I've already provided a link to SPEC, which has industry standard processor benchmark submissions. There are other benchmarks that people use, and this one has its detractors - but it is considered an industry standard for CPU performance comparisons (and IBM belongs to SPEC). For example, the highest performing single-core Opteron (HP Proliant System) gets a 14.0 in SPECint peak, and 12.7 base. The best single-core Xeon result (a Bull system), is 17.4 peak and 16.8 base. The best dual-core Opteron submission is 14.9 peak and 13.5 base. The best dual-core score for Xeon is 18.1 and 17.5 respectively. SPECint_rate is a throughput benchmark vs. raw integer computing performance (meaning, it is intended for multi-CPU systems). The best Opteron dual-core score is 27.0 peak, 24.3 base. The best Xeon score is 30.8 and 29.3 respectively. With 4 cores (two dual-cores, since AMD doesn't have a native quad-core result), Opteron (in a Sun system) gets 60.4 peak and 51.6 base, whereas Xeon has a 59.4 peak and 56.7 base. Just for information's sake, the base score is with the benchmark compiled using 'typical' compiler options. The peak score allows any compiler options - and some compilers may be targeted for SPEC benchmarks. Peak scores are usually looked at a little more skeptically because of this. There was an interesting submission by Sun (with their own SPARC processors) a few years back with SPEC CPU FP 2000 (not integer) where they had discovered how to 'break' one of the subtests, giving them a *huge* score in that one (they optimized a particular data structure so it would fit into cache). It was considered a 'cheat' because it was not something that would help in any case except that one. http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2001q4/cpu2000-20011119-01131.html > > >I've not seen any data regarding performance > >improvements for mainframe processors over that time except for the "4-fold > >increase in installed MIPS" between 2000 and 2007. There is no way to know > >how that relates to individual processors. If you have any data, that > >would be nice to hear. > > http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/lspr/ Thank you. > > >> > >> .... I don't think > >> there's anyone who buys a mainframe for its sheer processing power. > > > >.... These servers *are* purchased, in part, > >for their processing power. > > "In part"? > I really have no idea what point you are trying to argue - except just to be arguing. I've repeatedly stated that the original question was processor performance, not system throughput, reliability or anything else. It may suit your particular position to try and steer it away from that, but it remains a fact that this is what the original post I responded to was questioning. Now, since I have provided benchmark results showing Intel processors (without SOI) outperform AMD processors (using IBM's SOI), that Intel's process size is comparable, at the least, with IBMs, and that performance improvements for x86 (8-fold) appear to have exeeded mainframe processor performance improvments (2.5x in the same time period), I would like to see support for your assertions about IBM mainframe technology *leading* rather than just keeping pace (if it, indeed, does that). Since you have made the challenge of backing up assertions, I would expect you would follow that yourself. This is not meant to be argumentative, nor to disparage - I am trying to find out if, in fact, you have information that would convincingly rebut the data I've shown and dispel the perception that mainframe processors are slower than those used in other platforms. I only included the Intel vs. AMD data to show that your claim of 'technology leadership' (process size, copper, SOI, whatever) is not an indicator of processor performance. I'm interested in this from what you might call an 'academic' interest - I just find this sort of thing interesting (hence my pursuit of the information). 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
