Article: Tukwila Update
By: Linus Torvalds (torvalds.delete@this.linux-foundation.org), February 5, 2009 2:30 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 2/5/09 wrote:
>
>No. HP only sells the 24 MB SKU in bigger machines with
>slower memory systems and/or slower FSBs.
Ok. That's unexpected (I'd expect them to want to have
a "high end" sku for people who want to pay for them), but
Itanium never made much sense to me as a market so I guess
"unexpected" is just par for the course for me ;)
>Same compiler, 1.6 GHz:
>
>r6600, 24 MB L3, 533 MHz FSB - 14.5 SPECint_base2006
>r3600, 18 MB L3, 533 MHz FSB - 13.9 "
>r2620, 18 MB L3, 400 MHz FSB - 13.4 "
I was too lazy to wade through the details, so I just went
by "same vendor, same date" (as an approximation for "same
compiler"), and looked at the frequency and cache size.
And I then expected a larger cache to go with the more
expensive product that would presumably have had a better
FSB, rather than the other way around.
So I did not really expect to see the "oh, more cache but
crappier FSB" case. Yes, I mentioned it as a possibility,
but I didn't really think anybody would do that.
Thanks for lining them up like that.
>33% more BW = +4%
>33% more L3 = +4%
>33% more BW+L3 = +8%
And I'll happily admit that 4% is actually a bigger change
from just the higher FSB frequency than I expected. I
guess I'm still mentally stuck with Spec2000.
>Changes - Mont 9xxx -> Tukwila:
>
>smaller L3 per core (12/9 MB -> 6 MB per core)
>lower memory latency (4s: 10s of ns, 16s+: 100s of ns)
>higher mem BW per core (0.8-2.6 GB/s -> 8.5 GB/s)
>higher CPU frequency (1.60-1.66 -> 2 GHz = 20-25%)
>
>so
>
>- SPECint likely won't improve too much (<10% ?) above
>GHz increase (20-25%) and compiler improvements (???).
Agreed. And I really think that the frequency thing is
what matters. 2GHz is going to help. But 2.4GHz or
something like that would have been a much bigger deal.
As it is, it may drag the numbers from "pitiful" to "not
nearly competitive with x86, but at least with POWER".
>- bigger improvements in SPECfp, huge improvements in
>SPEC_rate.
>
>- bigger system = bigger relative performance boost.
.. except x86 grew bigger much faster with Core i7
(assuming Intel does release the 8-core version, of course,
and I don't think there's any reason to really doubt that).
So all the Specrate and parallel performance metrics will
actually be much smaller compared to x86.
Linus
>
>No. HP only sells the 24 MB SKU in bigger machines with
>slower memory systems and/or slower FSBs.
Ok. That's unexpected (I'd expect them to want to have
a "high end" sku for people who want to pay for them), but
Itanium never made much sense to me as a market so I guess
"unexpected" is just par for the course for me ;)
>Same compiler, 1.6 GHz:
>
>r6600, 24 MB L3, 533 MHz FSB - 14.5 SPECint_base2006
>r3600, 18 MB L3, 533 MHz FSB - 13.9 "
>r2620, 18 MB L3, 400 MHz FSB - 13.4 "
I was too lazy to wade through the details, so I just went
by "same vendor, same date" (as an approximation for "same
compiler"), and looked at the frequency and cache size.
And I then expected a larger cache to go with the more
expensive product that would presumably have had a better
FSB, rather than the other way around.
So I did not really expect to see the "oh, more cache but
crappier FSB" case. Yes, I mentioned it as a possibility,
but I didn't really think anybody would do that.
Thanks for lining them up like that.
>33% more BW = +4%
>33% more L3 = +4%
>33% more BW+L3 = +8%
And I'll happily admit that 4% is actually a bigger change
from just the higher FSB frequency than I expected. I
guess I'm still mentally stuck with Spec2000.
>Changes - Mont 9xxx -> Tukwila:
>
>smaller L3 per core (12/9 MB -> 6 MB per core)
>lower memory latency (4s: 10s of ns, 16s+: 100s of ns)
>higher mem BW per core (0.8-2.6 GB/s -> 8.5 GB/s)
>higher CPU frequency (1.60-1.66 -> 2 GHz = 20-25%)
>
>so
>
>- SPECint likely won't improve too much (<10% ?) above
>GHz increase (20-25%) and compiler improvements (???).
Agreed. And I really think that the frequency thing is
what matters. 2GHz is going to help. But 2.4GHz or
something like that would have been a much bigger deal.
As it is, it may drag the numbers from "pitiful" to "not
nearly competitive with x86, but at least with POWER".
>- bigger improvements in SPECfp, huge improvements in
>SPEC_rate.
>
>- bigger system = bigger relative performance boost.
.. except x86 grew bigger much faster with Core i7
(assuming Intel does release the 8-core version, of course,
and I don't think there's any reason to really doubt that).
So all the Specrate and parallel performance metrics will
actually be much smaller compared to x86.
Linus
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/04 11:03 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Dan | 2009/02/05 02:17 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Joe Chang | 2009/02/05 08:16 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Temp | 2009/02/05 08:25 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Paul | 2009/02/05 11:29 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 05:32 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 12:24 AM |
Great. Finally hard numbers | Michael S | 2009/02/06 03:46 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | lubemark | 2009/02/06 04:54 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 06:29 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 02:39 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/07 03:09 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 05:23 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/06 06:13 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 06:18 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/06 06:47 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 07:17 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 02:51 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 07:37 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 08:19 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 09:19 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 09:40 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | savantu | 2009/02/06 10:00 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Phil | 2009/02/09 03:54 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/09 09:40 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Jouni Osmala | 2009/02/10 12:03 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/10 05:15 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | slacker | 2009/02/10 05:22 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Michael S | 2009/02/05 02:56 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 03:55 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/05 04:47 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | anon | 2009/02/05 09:16 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | RagingDragon | 2009/02/05 09:27 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 06:32 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | anon | 2009/02/06 08:25 AM |
Tukwila Update - article online | someone | 2009/02/06 08:40 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/05 02:30 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | someone | 2009/02/05 06:00 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/05 06:36 AM |
POWER6 interconnect | confused | 2009/02/05 09:50 AM |
POWER6 interconnect | foobar | 2009/02/05 01:12 PM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Wes Felter | 2009/02/05 11:57 AM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Jesper Frimann | 2009/02/09 10:54 PM |
POWER6 memory bandwidth | Michael S | 2009/02/10 06:21 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 07:40 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/05 07:50 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 08:29 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/05 09:34 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 10:09 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Phil | 2009/02/06 12:10 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 12:50 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Phil | 2009/02/06 06:09 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 09:08 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 09:21 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/06 01:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 01:16 PM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 03:16 PM |
Why the platform focus? | mas | 2009/02/25 07:28 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 06:12 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Devon Welles | 2009/02/06 06:51 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 09:41 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Dean Kent | 2009/02/06 06:56 PM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | someone | 2009/02/07 08:38 AM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | Dean Kent | 2009/02/07 02:10 PM |
Unit sales is meaningless when ASP grows faster | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 03:34 PM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/08 04:35 AM |
itanium bigger than entire car industry | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 03:40 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 06:47 AM |
Yes it doesm performance matters | bob | 2009/02/05 09:51 AM |
Yes it doesm performance matters | Venki | 2009/02/05 10:06 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/06 12:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 01:00 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/05 09:49 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 11:03 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Default | 2009/02/05 12:29 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/05 01:08 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/05 01:24 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/05 02:30 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Paradox | 2009/02/05 10:22 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/05 12:41 PM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/05 09:57 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/06 05:11 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/06 12:58 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/08 01:24 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 08:38 AM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/08 03:27 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 06:26 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/08 11:35 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 08:53 AM |
All x86 SpecInt scores are useless due to autopar (NT) | Michael S | 2009/02/05 02:15 PM |
Auto parallelization | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 05:17 PM |
All x86 SpecInt scores are useless due to autopar (NT) | Paradox | 2009/02/06 07:47 AM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/05 03:49 PM |
Why the platform focus? | David Kanter | 2009/02/06 12:09 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 07:14 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 09:37 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 11:49 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 12:09 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | someone | 2009/02/06 01:08 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 05:01 PM |
Intel puts its money where its mouth is | someone | 2009/02/08 01:24 PM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/08 04:06 PM |
mission-critical | mpx | 2009/02/09 01:30 AM |
mission-critical | rwessel | 2009/02/09 02:23 PM |
mission-critical | anon | 2009/02/09 02:55 AM |
mission-critical | EduardoS | 2009/02/09 04:17 PM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/09 07:11 PM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/10 04:20 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 06:26 AM |
mission-critical | Michael S | 2009/02/10 07:01 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 12:36 PM |
mission-critical | someone | 2009/02/10 08:05 AM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 12:22 PM |
mission-critical | Zt | 2009/02/22 03:54 PM |
mission-critical | anon | 2009/02/10 09:41 PM |
mission-critical | EduardoS | 2009/02/10 12:46 PM |
mission-critical | Dean Kent | 2009/02/10 01:31 PM |
mission-critical | slacker | 2009/02/10 06:30 PM |
mission-critical | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/18 06:20 AM |
Mission critical | mpx | 2009/02/09 12:00 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/07 12:15 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | David Kanter | 2009/02/07 12:34 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | max | 2009/02/07 02:30 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | someone | 2009/02/07 09:19 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 09:44 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 05:09 PM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Michael S | 2009/02/08 04:05 AM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | RagingDragon | 2009/02/09 11:03 PM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Jesper Frimann | 2009/02/09 11:51 PM |
Sun and x86 server differentiation | Alex Jones | 2009/02/10 12:43 PM |
Why the platform focus? | bob | 2009/02/08 03:51 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 08:23 AM |
missing the big picture | AM | 2009/02/18 05:43 AM |
missing the big picture | Michael S | 2009/02/18 07:42 AM |
missing the big picture | AM | 2009/02/18 08:03 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/06 11:47 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | mpx | 2009/02/06 03:48 PM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | Paul | 2009/02/07 01:56 PM |
z series? | Michael S | 2009/02/07 02:12 PM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | someone else | 2009/02/24 03:37 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | EduardoS | 2009/02/24 05:55 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | someone else | 2009/02/25 12:55 AM |
Itanium - slowest and most obsolete server CPU family in the world, NOW. | Michael S | 2009/02/25 01:27 AM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 05:18 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Paul | 2009/02/08 12:10 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Jukka Larja | 2009/02/08 10:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/06 01:10 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/06 01:40 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/06 01:51 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/06 01:58 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 08:26 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/07 09:10 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/07 09:40 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/07 11:24 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/07 11:32 PM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/08 03:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/08 04:20 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/08 08:15 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/08 10:36 PM |
Why the platform focus? | hobold | 2009/02/09 04:49 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 12:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/24 08:45 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 11:30 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/24 12:51 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 11:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 01:34 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 09:17 AM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/25 10:15 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/24 04:43 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/24 07:26 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Howard Chu | 2009/02/25 02:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 05:48 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 05:41 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/25 08:17 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 08:55 AM |
has anyone seen Tukwila silicon? | anon | 2009/02/25 09:38 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Linus Torvalds | 2009/02/25 10:05 AM |
Why the platform focus? | slacker | 2009/02/25 12:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | a reader | 2009/02/26 08:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | rcf | 2009/02/27 12:32 PM |
Why the platform focus? | max | 2009/02/27 01:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | rcf | 2009/02/27 02:50 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/25 03:30 PM |
$40M sale to $16M company | bob | 2009/02/25 07:25 PM |
$40M sale to $16M company | Richard Cownie | 2009/02/26 11:21 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/24 10:52 AM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 11:20 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/24 02:31 PM |
Why the platform focus? | savantu | 2009/02/24 11:05 PM |
Why the platform focus? | someone else | 2009/02/25 12:04 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 12:42 AM |
Put me down for $500 that Poulson doesn't arrive earlier than Q4/2011 (NT) | slacker | 2009/02/25 11:39 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 05:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/25 08:46 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 09:22 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 10:01 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anonymous | 2009/02/25 10:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | mpx | 2009/02/24 01:11 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 07:57 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/24 09:04 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/24 09:46 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/25 04:13 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 07:53 PM |
Why the platform focus? | bob | 2009/02/25 08:00 PM |
Please try to keep up (NT) | anon | 2009/02/25 08:49 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Doug Siebert | 2009/02/25 11:09 PM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/26 12:12 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/26 01:16 AM |
Why the platform focus? | James | 2009/02/26 05:09 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | Michael S | 2009/02/26 05:29 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | anon | 2009/02/27 12:01 AM |
sufficiently intimate with the OS | Howard Chu | 2009/02/27 12:37 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Michael S | 2009/02/25 01:02 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 02:07 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/07 12:18 PM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/08 09:16 AM |
Why the platform focus? | anon | 2009/02/25 06:40 AM |
Intels financial status | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/25 11:02 AM |
Why the platform focus? | someone | 2009/02/25 06:54 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 07:20 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Default | 2009/02/06 08:57 AM |
Why the platform focus? | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/06 09:59 AM |
Why the platform focus? | RagingDragon | 2009/02/07 05:43 PM |
Tukwila Update - article online | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/02/05 08:11 AM |