Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Aug 2010 23:24 UTC
Permalink for comment 438784
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-08-29
If the given explanation is wrong, and if you claim this IBM Mainframe z196 cpu is really fast - then where is the error in the reasoning? Please point the errors out. If you claim that the IBM Mainframe cpus are not slow, but fast - please point out the errors so that I understand why are correct. Or do you mean I should just trust you, just because you work at IBM?
Short recap of the arguments showing why this z196 cpu is slow. This IBM z196 Mainframe CPU gives ~650 MIPS, according to IBM. Let us relate the number 650 MIPS to x86 cpu:
(A) Intel Nehalem-EX gives 400 MIPS under software emulation. Software emulation is 5-10x slower. If we ported the Mainframe code to x86, the Nehalem-EX can actually execute code worth of 2000-4000 MIPS. Hence, x86 is much faster.
(B) 1 MIPS equals 4 MHz x86. An 8-core 2GHz Nehalem-EX has 16 GHz in total. This equals 4.000 MIPS. Hence x86 is much faster.
So where are the errors in (A) and where are the errors in (B)? Please point them out.
Also, you claim that one z196 does not have up to 376 MB cache? So, no half a GB of cache?