By: juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com), August 11, 2014 7:05 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on August 10, 2014 7:24 am wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 10, 2014 6:24 am wrote:
>
> > 20--30% sounds as the right efficiency numbers at that level. Precisely 90W
> > ARM SoCs are providing around 80--90% of performance of 140W Haswell Xeons.
>
> Actually, 90W ARM SoCs are providing 0% of the performance
> of a 140W Haswell.
As mentioned to you before there was demos of performance with up to 90% of single thread performance of Haswell Xeon server. The ARM hardware exists despite you pretending otherwise:
Nvidia has also promised to give soon some standard HPC benchmarks.
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 10, 2014 6:24 am wrote:
>
> > 20--30% sounds as the right efficiency numbers at that level. Precisely 90W
> > ARM SoCs are providing around 80--90% of performance of 140W Haswell Xeons.
>
> Actually, 90W ARM SoCs are providing 0% of the performance
> of a 140W Haswell.
As mentioned to you before there was demos of performance with up to 90% of single thread performance of Haswell Xeon server. The ARM hardware exists despite you pretending otherwise:
At the International Super Computing conference in Leipzig, Germany, this week, a number of system makers were showing off development and production machines based on the first generation X-Gene processor from Applied Micro, and GPU accelerator maker Nvidia was also on hand to remind everyone that its Tesla coprocessors and CUDA parallel programming environment worked on 64-bit ARM platforms (technically known as ARMv8 architecture but often called ARM64 colloquially) just as they do on X86 chips
Nvidia has also promised to give soon some standard HPC benchmarks.
