Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 5, 2012 2:55 pm wrote:
> Kira (kirsc.delete@this.aeterna.ru) on August 5, 2012 2:26 pm wrote:
> > mpx
> (mpx.delete@this.nomail.pl) on August 1, 2012 11:19 pm wrote:
> > >
> >
> defderdar (derderdar.delete@this.mailinator.com) on August 1, 2012 2:52 pm
>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > won't Oracle try to cripple some
> performance on some
> > level
> > >
> > >
> > > Itanium
> does it by itself, there's no need for
> > external intervention.
> > >
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So if Itanium support should be
> >
> killed because of its supposedly "crippling" performance, why on earth should
>
> > Oracle keep supporting the (far slower) M-series SPARC?
>
> I'd expect
> fully loaded M9000 (64-socket SPARC64 VII+) to be approximately twice faster
> than fully loaded Superdome2 (32-socket Tukwila) in majority of commercial
> applications.
> Do you have a hard data that could contradict my
> expectations?
>

SPEC indicates that Tukwila is significantly faster than S64 VII (albeit the slightly older 2.66GHz model):

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2010q4/cpu2006-20101206-13883.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2010q2/cpu2006-20100426-10756.html

There's also the fact that it's using DDR3, rather than S64's DDR2, and doesn't seem to be depending on a shared bus, which S64 VII seems to still be doing. I would be extremely surprised if a 64s M9K came out twice as fast as a 32s SD2 in typical commercial applications.