Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law"

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:32:27 03/02/03

Go up one level in this thread

On March 02, 2003 at 22:29:27, Jeremiah Penery wrote:

>On March 02, 2003 at 10:22:07, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>On March 02, 2003 at 02:39:08, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>>On March 01, 2003 at 20:17:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>On March 01, 2003 at 11:48:50, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>>>>On March 01, 2003 at 10:11:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>Sun doesn't sell more than a single million-dollar computer a year.  They
>>>I couldn't find specific numbers on this, but I really doubt that.  How else
>>>could they get to $5 billion in SPARC _server_ sales last year?  Do you have any
>>>actual data you can give?  I'd be interested to see it.
>>I'll look.  Several "trade journals" quote such market shares frequently, I'll
>>see what I can dig up.
>I already gave market shares.  You made a specific claim that Sun didn't sell
>more than one multi-million dollar machine last year.  I want proof of that

That is what I was talking about.

>>>>are hopeless in that market, because that is SGI Challenge territory and the
>>>I'd say SGI sells less big boxes than SPARC these days.  SGI is poised to have
>>>_total_ revenue of only $1 billion in fiscal 2003.  That's counting the Itanium
>>>machines they will begin selling soon.
>>>>SGI eats the sparc in any benchmark ever created...  As will the big
>>>Care to back that up with some actual data?  I can't find a single benchmark
>>>where a MIPS chip is above the newest SPARC chips.  Nor can I find a MIPS-based
>>>machine faster than any SPARC machine.
>>I'm not sure where you are looking.  We just bought a batch of (I think) 900mhz
>>ultra-sparcs (6).  They are 1/4 the raw computing speed of our best intel box
>>and I am not talking about SMP, just raw CPU power.  I can post a crafty bench
>>if you want to compare.  They are _dog_ slow.
>Are you not talking about MIPS machines?  I already know the Intel processors
>are a lot faster.

I'm talking about sparcs.  They lag behind _every_ processor being sold, unless
you buy the slowest Inte/MIPS/PPC4 and compare it to the fastest sparc.  The
sparc _might_ be fairly close to the very bottom end, but nothing beyond.

>>>>itanium boxes.  Hell, even a multi-xeon will eat any sparc on a cpu for cpu
>>>>basis without even using SMT.  :)
>>>I believe you there.  But as you pointed out before, processor speed doesn't
>>>matter much in the server world.
>>No, but when you start designing high-performance busses, multiple I/O channels,
>>ultra-high memory bandwidth, it is likely that top-end processor chips will be
>>used as well, particularly 64 bit...
>Regardless of what you say, SPARC is selling a lot more than MIPS is in that
>market segment.

In the high-end servers?  Our supercomputer center has SGI power challenges.
Not a sparc server to be found up there, where performance is the issue.  Sun
sells a fair number of workstations, and webserver-type machines (although
why I have no idea).  But not high-end servers that are used for computation
and ultra-large applications.

The SPARC rep is _well-known_ which is why it is about to die...

Sun might survive when they move to a non-sparc platform.  They might not.
Folks are _not_ going to be happy when they get to dump their existing sparc
software and purchase compilers and applications for a different chip.  This
almost killed them when they moved from the M680x0 to the sparc.  I wonder
if they will survive this move, but I really don't care since I don't think
much of their hardware.

This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.