3 ms·
The thing is, if you're going for a POWER server these days you aren't going for the overall performance of the machine, you're going for the per-core performan
by CrLf 11y ago
The thing is, if you're going for a POWER server these days you aren't going for the overall performance of the machine, you're going for the per-core performance.
It has been pretty easy to get an x86 box with better total performance than a POWER box for years. The problem is that you're going to go bankrupt trying to license all those cores for the kind of software you're getting from IBM and which is the reason POWER is even in the equation in the first place...
Most IBM software (if not all) is licensed as PVUs (processor value units). This hurts multi-core machines badly.
- Symmetry 11y agoIs it easy to get an x86 that fast? I thought x86 was limited to only 4 sockets, way less than the biggest POWER machines.
- iolothebard 11y agoThe 8 in the 8800 means it can do 8 sockets. http://ark.intel.com/products/84685/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8890-v3-45M-Cache-2_50-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/84685/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-... >Package Specifications >Max CPU Configuration 8 So 18 cores * 8 = 144 cores / 288 threads per board. Not too shabby.
- CrLf 11y agoWhen I last checked, IBM sold these x86 servers (I can't recall what the model line was called) that you could stack and made to behave as a single NUMA box. These compared very favorably to POWER servers in the same price range (32 cores on x86 vs. 6 cores on POWER7). I don't remember the maximum scalability of these, but I doubt they would reach the biggest POWER machines. Problem is: if you need the biggest POWER machines, you're probably running something that isn't even portable to x86, so the comparison becomes academic.