Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 17, 2020 10:44 am wrote:
> TransientStudent (nope.delete@this.none.com) on August 17, 2020 4:23 am wrote:
> > Thu (Anon.delete@this.anon.com) on August 17, 2020 3:27 am wrote:
> > > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 17, 2020 2:12 am wrote:
> > > > Thu (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on August 16, 2020 11:56 pm wrote:
> > > > > Crystal S. Diamond (cdiamond.delete@this.diamondgirls.com) on August 16, 2020 10:20 pm wrote:
> > > > > > Here it is boys...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/news/hardware/prozessoren/53864-ibm-power10-bietet-30-kerne-mit-smt8-pcie-5-und-omi-memory.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true
> > > > >
> > > > > Does look very impressive. With 3X the performance per socket
> > > > > using the same energy as POWER9 - it should easily
> > > > > beat Intel and AMD at time of release in terms of performance.
> > > >
> > > > Beat in which metric?
> > > > Per system, per chip, per core or per thread?
> > > > Per core throughput lead would be easy, but that metric is meaningless for most of us.
> > > > Lead in other metrics would be much harder.
> > > >
> > > > State of the art:
> > > > SpecInt2017 rates (1 chip)
> > > > AMD EPYC 7H12, 1S/64C/128T, 2.6GHz - 397/361
> > > > Intel Xeon Platinum 8280L, 1S/28C/56T, 2.7 GHz - 180/171
> > > >
> > > > 1-chip POWER9 is not available. There are only two scores:
> > > > IBM Power E950, 4S/40C/320T, 3.4 GHz - 475/392
> > > > IBM Power S924 2S/24C/144T, 3.4 GHz - 277/213
> > > >
> > > > > Not sure about energy efficiency though.
> > > >
> > > > For me the most interesting would be if IBM is going to publish
> > > > non-rate benchmarks. It didn't happen for a long time.
> > > > https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2010q2/cpu2006-20100426-10753.html
> > > > 10.5 years ago.
> > > >
> > > Just some rough calculations suggests that a power10 socket with 30 cores could get around 480+ in
> > > specint if you take the 3x performance they talking about is comparing the highest end power10 Vs power9.
> > > Highest end power9 is clocked at 4ghz - quite a lot higher than the 3.4ghz submitted figure.
> > >
> > > But I doubt IBM is overly concerned with specint - they would
> > > target OLTP workloads which should excel in these machines.
> > >
> > > I doubt ibm will ever publish any non rate benchmarks - it is guaranteed to be lower than competition.
> > > Power10 is only increasing single thread performance by 20%. - so that would hardly catch up.
> >
> > So by your own estimations it will actually not "easily beat
> > Intel and AMD at time of release in terms of performance".
>
> You have to understand that "beating Intel/AMD" is a flexible
> term that means whatever the author wants it to mean.
> Back when Intel was the undisputed single thread king, what counted as beating was best single
> threaded performance. Once Apple got close to that, the goalposts moved to best throughput.
> Once ARM servers got close to that, the goals moved to "best throughput but using the same
> number of CPUs". (You'll notice the goals get more and more baroque as time goes on...)
> This time next year the goalposts will likely have moved to "best throughput while executing an x86 binary".
>
> IBM has particular targets in mind as is obvious from this design: a certain type of huge memory footprint
> FP code, a certain type of integer throughput code. I assume they will do fine on those.
> Will they do fine on various goals they are just as clearly not targeting? Unlikely.

How about the basic metric of 'is this worth upgrading to from my existing system without changing software licensing costs'? IBM has been able to milk that concept for generations on the mainframe side of things.