3 ms·

Except neither of those are in the same performance ballpark as Intel, while Power ISA is.

adwn 7y ago
I might be misunderstanding you, but performance isn't in the ISA, it's in the implementation. In fact, the x86 ISA is the best example for this: It's really difficult to get competitive performance out of an ISA designed in the 70s, yet billions upon billions of USD in R&D and optimization make it work.
- ecnahc515 7y ago
  The ISA matters, otherwise we wouldn't care about SIMD. If your ISA is missing SIMD functionality, then it doesn't matter how good your implementation is, it will be slower than an implementation of an ISA that supports SIMD when it comes to anything that can leverage SIMD.
chasil 7y ago
Fujitsu begs to disagree: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/22/fujitsu_post_k_a64fx/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/22/fujitsu_post_k_a64f... Fujitsu had already built SuperSPARC-based supercomputers, and Oracle recently ported their Red Hat clone to AArch64 (no legacy 32-bit or Thumb) and produced an ISO for the PI-3.
- classichasclass 7y ago
  I won't dispute SPARC (Fujitsu has done some impressive work on it), but the post was for ARM and RISC-V.
  - chasil 7y ago
    The link I posted was Fujitsu's new ARM server, which bundles 32GB of RAM and over 30 cores on a single die. These are deployed in dual-socket blades attached to the "tofu" routing that they scavenged from their SPARC supercomputer. Fujitsu is saying that their ARM implementation is the fastest server processor available, ahead of Intel.
imtringued 7y ago
I don't know why you compare processor implementations and then talk as if that generalizes to all processor implementations of a given ISA. Intel Atom chips definitively aren't in the same performance ballpark as POWER9. I mean it should be obvious. The ISA does not dictate memory performance, micro architecture, clock frequencies, manufacturing processes, number of cores, maximum allowed power consumption, etc. All of those affect performance but are independent of the ISA.

adwn 7y ago

I might be misunderstanding you, but performance isn't in the ISA, it's in the implementation. In fact, the x86 ISA is the best example for this: It's really difficult to get competitive performance out of an ISA designed in the 70s, yet billions upon billions of USD in R&D and optimization make it work.

ecnahc515 7y ago
The ISA matters, otherwise we wouldn't care about SIMD. If your ISA is missing SIMD functionality, then it doesn't matter how good your implementation is, it will be slower than an implementation of an ISA that supports SIMD when it comes to anything that can leverage SIMD.

chasil 7y ago

Fujitsu begs to disagree: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/22/fujitsu_post_k_a64fx/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/22/fujitsu_post_k_a64f... Fujitsu had already built SuperSPARC-based supercomputers, and Oracle recently ported their Red Hat clone to AArch64 (no legacy 32-bit or Thumb) and produced an ISO for the PI-3.

classichasclass 7y ago
I won't dispute SPARC (Fujitsu has done some impressive work on it), but the post was for ARM and RISC-V.
- chasil 7y ago
  The link I posted was Fujitsu's new ARM server, which bundles 32GB of RAM and over 30 cores on a single die. These are deployed in dual-socket blades attached to the "tofu" routing that they scavenged from their SPARC supercomputer. Fujitsu is saying that their ARM implementation is the fastest server processor available, ahead of Intel.

imtringued 7y ago

I don't know why you compare processor implementations and then talk as if that generalizes to all processor implementations of a given ISA. Intel Atom chips definitively aren't in the same performance ballpark as POWER9. I mean it should be obvious. The ISA does not dictate memory performance, micro architecture, clock frequencies, manufacturing processes, number of cores, maximum allowed power consumption, etc. All of those affect performance but are independent of the ISA.