Dean Kent wrote:
In any case, raw MIPS improvements are easily researched. For example,
the charts at http://www.tech-news.com/publib/ show the largest zSeries
processor in 2000, made available in 1Q00, was a 2064-116, capable of
delivering 2694 MIPS; the largest System z processor today, made
available in 4Q05, was a 2094-754, capable of delivering 17,802 MIPS.
That's a 6.6:1 improvement in less than five years. (Not bad!)
That isn't per-CPU MIPS, though (which is what was originally being
discussed).
I really wasn't paying any attention to this thread. But, I happened to
read the non sequitur you posted (see below), and thought I should respond.
I am comparing the pace of improvement in x86 with the mainframe.
The IT
Jungle article says that installed mainframe MIPS has increased 4 fold
over
7 years. I showed that in the same time period, x86 performance has
increased over 8 fold. We still aren't getting an apples to apples
comparison because it doesn't tell us what the highest performing
mainframe
processor was in 2000 vs today.
First, you compare installed MIPS with performance. Nothing need be said
about that. Non sequitur. Then you asked what the highest performing
mainframe was in 2000 vs today. I believe I answered that question
correctly.
In any case, I see that the 2064-1C1 (single processor) achieved about 250
MIPS, while a 2094-701 achieved about 608 (single OS image) MIPS. So in
reality, the *processor* improvement was about 2.5x - still OK, but not
quite as impressive.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Part of mainframe processing
"power" lies in its ability to do effectively use SMP (up to 54-ways now
... more later). It's part of the equation. Good benchmarks are based on
computing throughput ... not individual chip speed.
Which brings me back to the point about 'keeping pace' with processor
improvements of other architectures. x86 had about an 8-fold performance
increase during the same period (I'm not talking clock rates). For whatever
that is worth.
Read your own statement quoted up above. You originally said x86 had an
8-fold increase over seven years. (Is that chip speed or actual server
speed?) Now you're saying it had an 8-fold increase in just 4 1/2 years
-- the time frame over which the mainframe had a 6.6:1 processor speed
increase (or 2.5:1 individual CP speed increase if that's what you
choose to focus on).
And, I am
aware that the system performance is more important than processor
peformance for end users- however, I'm just trying to keep the focus on the
question of why people think mainframe processors are slow compared to
others.
I wasn't aware that people think mainframe processors are slow compared
to others. Is this from a survey of some kind? Or perhaps from that IT
Jungle article you referenced? Can you post the URL?
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
