4 ms·
This is the fine print: >Compared 5 IBM Machine Type 3931 Max 125 model consists of three CPC drawers containing 125 configurable cores (CPs, zIIPs, or IFLs) a
by treis 4y ago
This is the fine print:
>Compared 5 IBM Machine Type 3931 Max 125 model consists of three CPC drawers containing 125 configurable cores (CPs, zIIPs, or IFLs) and two I/O drawers to support both network and external storage versus 192 x86 systems with a total of 10364 cores. IBM Machine Type 3931 power consumption was based on inputs to the IBM Machine Type 3931 IBM Power Estimation Tool for a memo configuration. x86 power consumption was based on March 2022 IDC QPI power values for 7 Cascade Lake and 5 Ice Lake server models, with 32 to 112 cores per server. All compared x86 servers were 2 or 4 socket servers. IBM Z and x86 are running 24x7x365 with production and non-production workloads. Savings assumes a Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) ratio of 1.57 to calculate additional power for data center cooling. PUE is based on Uptime Institute 2021 Global Data Center Survey (https://uptimeinstitute.com/about-ui/press-releases/uptime-institute-11th-annual-global-data-center-survey https://uptimeinstitute.com/about-ui/press-releases/uptime-i...). CO2e and other equivalencies that are based on the EPA GHG calculator (https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calc...) use U.S. National weighted averages. Results may vary based on client-specific usage and location.
- nisa 4y agoWondering how a dual socket AMD EPYC™ 9654 system with 2x96 cores would compare. It's not clear how many 14nm+ Cascade Lake machines were used and it's also not clear how many 32core machines were used. 10364cores/192servers averages about 53 cores/server. It's apple and oranges anyway because I guess if you consider this you have different priorities but I'm skeptical that x86 couldn't come close in terms of performance/watt
- adrian_b 4y agoIt is certain that the new 5-nm AMD Genoa CPUs have a better energy efficiency than the 7-nm IBM CPUs, for the applications that are executed on the CPU. Nevertheless, for certain workloads this IBM server might have a better energy efficiency, when they can exploit some of the many accelerators that exist in the IBM server, for offloading some tasks from the CPU. Intel pursues now the same strategy, because the soon-to-be-introduced Sapphire Rapids cannot beat AMD Genoa in a CPU vs. CPU competition, Intel stresses now the advantages offered by the accelerators that they have included in Sapphire Rapids, following the traditional IBM model.
- hinkley 4y agoPlus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zozbot234 4y agoNothing new here; domain-specific accelerators are a natural response to "dark silicon", which is increasingly relevant at leading-edge process nodes given the failure of Dennard scaling. I.e. you've got space for a huge amount of transistors on your silicon, but only a tiny fraction of them can be powered on at any given time.
- jacob019 4y agoSounds very contrived, I would like to see side by side comparisons performing the same tasks.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]