Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2008 20:44 UTC, submitted by Moochman
Oracle and SUN Engadget got the chance to sit down with Jonathan Schwartz, the pony-tailed CEO of Sun Microsystems. Being the gadget blog that they are, Engadget asked Schwartz about the long-missing JavaFX Mobile platform Sun has promised, Java on the iPhone, and competing with Microsoft as an open source vendor.
Permalink for comment 312825
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Shame ...
by Arun on Mon 5th May 2008 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shame ..."
Member since:

Such metrics are pretty meaningless overall. All CPU makers now, including AMD and Intel, are talking about putting more cores on a chip and doing more in terms of parallel applications and threading (corner cases for performance improvements really) when people really want to do a task twice the size in half the time and get more through - and the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there. In the seven years since I seriously looked at Linux/x86 and Solaris/SPARC head-to-head, 4370 pystones/sec on an UltraSPARC versus 17,543 pystones/sec on a 1.4GHz Athlon was a pretty big no brainer, and that's why lots of academic institutions in particular jumped off. I don't see that the situation has improved.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Lets just look at raw performance here, both systems in the following configuration cost almost the same:

HP ProLiant DL580 G5
Intel Xeon X7350 Processor 2933MHz
16 cores, 4 chips, 4 cores/chip
SPECweb2005 = 40046
SPECweb2005_Banking = 71104
SPECweb2005_Ecommerce = 55552
SPECweb2005_Support = 36032

Sun SPARC Enterprise T5220
Sun UltraSPARC T2 1400Mhz
8 cores, 1 chip, 8 cores/chip (8 threads/core)
SPECweb2005 = 41847
SPECweb2005_Banking = 70000
SPECweb2005_Ecommerce = 58000
SPECweb2005_Support = 40000

Oh look! a single 8 core 1.4 GHz SPARC system is better than a 16 core 2.9 GHz Xeon System in raw performance.

In performance per watt the Xeon box will look like a joke. Each of the Xeons in that box take 130 Ws so 4x130 is 520 Watts for the cpus alone. The UltraSPARC on the other hand consumes 95 watts normal max 123 Watts.

Why does an Intel based system need 5x the power and 4x the cpus to produce worse results than a single UltraSPARC chip?

Doesn't look like your ignorant statement " the x86-64 processors will still always cream SPARC there."

BTW Academic institutions are back.

"1. What is the cluster?
We are installing a new compute cluster that is based on Sun SPARC Enterprise T5140 Servers. At the start, about half of these servers are available, one login node called vflogin0 and the compute nodes named vf0001.... We will add the other nodes as testing and configuration work is completed, for a total of 78.

Each of these nodes includes two 1.2 Ghz UltraSparc T2+ chips. Each of these chips has 8 compute cores, and each core is capable of Chip Multi Threading with 8 hardware threads. This means that each of the nodes is capable of working simultaneously on up to 128 threads. Once fully installed, the cluster, called "Victoria Falls" will be able to process almost 10,000 threads."

Edited 2008-05-05 00:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1