Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Thread beginning with comment 436794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-07-27
It doesnt matter which CPUs IBM Mainframes use. The Mainframes lag behind cpu wise. They are dog slooooow. As I have shown earlier with links and calculations, you need a PC with 8-way Intel Nehalem-EX cpus, to match the biggest IBM Mainframe with 64 cpus. That is horribly bad performance from the Mainframe. In fact, you can emulate a Mainframe on your laptop with "Herkules".
But the biggest IBM Mainframe with 64 cpus, probably costs a couple of 10s of million USD.
If someone asks me, I can show these links and calculations again. Please, someone ask me to start over again about how slow the Mainframe cpus are. :o)