Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 6, 2012 1:02 am wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 5, 2012 3:49 pm
> wrote:
> > > > Oracle keep supporting the (far slower) M-series
> SPARC?
> >
> > Honestly,
> > the 'Itanium has bad performance' excuse
> makes no sense. It's definitely faster
> > than Niagara and potentially the
> Fujitsu M-series.
>
> Potentially!? What it supposed to mean? Wait for
> Poulson?
>
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > I think
> the relevant comparison point is
> > Poulson, as it should be out any day
> now.
> >
> > I'm a little surprised that they
> > only have 32S systems,
> since they used to scale up to 64S...and now they have
> > better
> interconnects.
>
> That's the same as Fujitsu. Back in dual-core days they used
> to scale up to 128S, but now the biggest M9000 is 64S.
>
> >
> > But I
> don't perceive Itanium as being dramatically
> > slower than Fujitsu.
> >
>
> > DK
>
> Well, perception is one thing and the facts is something else.
> We
> certainly don't have enough facts to know whether top HP gear is "dramatically
> slower" that than top Fujitsu M-series or just a little slower. But, IMO, we
> have enough info to be sure that Kira's original claim (M-series is far slower
> than Integrity) is false.
>
>
> Anyway, the comparison between supporting Itanium
> and supporting M-series was invalid regardless of relative performance, for more
> than one reason:
> 1. Oracle resells M-series. So, it's partly their own.
> 2.
> Incremental effort required to support M-series on top of T-series (the same OS,
> the same ISA, mostly the same toolchain) is far lower than required to support
> HP-UX/Itanium on top of ... well ... nothing.
>

Where's this proof that Tuk is slower than S64 VII? I posted SPEC numbers. Are you seriously claiming that a chip that has significantly lower SPECint numbers, a smaller cache, a shared bus, an off-chip memory controller, and supports an older generation of memory... is faster? Evidence, please? Or at least a rationale?