Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:40:05 02/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2003 at 18:06:14, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >I will respond to the stuff below, but the discussion is starting to get off >course. My assertion was that if Xeons suddenly added 50% to their clockrate >overnight that they would begin to eat into the 'server' markets. There are >plenty of applications in that space that are CPU bound, where that super fast >Xeon would fit nicely. Of course it would not take the entire market, or even >50% of the market. I never said it would. But I'd be willing to bet anything >that it would take _some_ of that market (5%, 10%, who knows?). That's all I >ever tried to claim in this particular thread. OK. I am thinking "bigger". And I don't think the bare PC platform is going to invade the high-end server market in any shape. The bottom end, perhaps, but that is as far as it goes. > > >On February 24, 2003 at 00:03:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 23, 2003 at 22:48:35, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>You seem to be ignoring that TPC-W has non-clustered x86 machines in the lead. >> >> >>Where? >> >>Didn't see a one that wasn't a NUMA-type box with each machine having its >>own I/O.... >> >>I may have overlooked something of course. > >I posted it a few messages up in this thread. But I overlooked something also, >in that every submitted result for TPC-W is an x86 machine. They're all listed >as non-cluster machines, up to 16 CPUs, but I don't know what their definition >of 'cluster' is. They _must_ be NUMA then, as there are no X86 16-way chipsets. > > >I see something else interesting though. Top 10 TPC-C results for >non-clustered(*) machines look like this: > >1) 128 CPU Fujitsu SPARC64 GP 563MHz >2) 32 CPU Itanium2 1GHz >3) 32 CPU POWER4 1.3GHz >4) 64 CPU PA-RISC 8700 875MHz >5) <same as 3> >6) <same as 4> >7) <same as 2> >8) 32 CPU XeonMP 2GHz >9) 32 CPU Alpha 21264A 1001MHz >10) 48 CPU Sun SPARC64 GP 563MHz > >I'll isolate #s 8 and 9 here: >\ I really have no idea what those might be. Apparently some "custom" work there, which is possible, since "sequent" made a SMP platform using X86 processors. And in that regard, my above comment was wrong. But then the sequent was not in a PC price range either... >8) >Total System Cost - 2,715,310 US $ >TPC-C Throughput - 234,325 >Price/Performance - 11.59 US $ >Availability Date - 03/31/03 >Database Manager - Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition >Operating System - Microsoft Windows .NET Server 2003 Datacenter Edt. >Transaction Monitor - Microsoft COM+ > >9) >Total System Cost - 10,286,029 US $ >TPC-C Throughput - 230,533 >Price/Performance - 44.62 US $ >Availability Date - 07/30/01 >Database Manager - Oracle 9i Database Enterprise Edition >Operating System - Compaq Tru64 UNIX V5.1 >Transaction Monitor - Compaq DB Web Connector V1.1 > >How can such a number be explained? I would expect the Alpha machine to win by >a large margin, but it actually loses. > >(*) Again, I don't know how they define cluster. I am not aware of a Windows >version that has any kind of NUMA optimizations, however, which I think would be >necessary to get a very good score on this type of benchmark, if indeed the >machines are NUMA ones. The compaq alpha box is definitely NUMA. I've run on one. As for the speed, it just shows that CPU power is a small part of the equation at that end of the performance spectrum. It's _way_ more about I/O... otherwise #10 wouldn't even be on the same planet with the rest, as the sparc is a performance _dog_.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.