Slashdot Mirror

Parent mocked:
>Sheesh, the Itanic wasn't exactly a success story. How does it fit into their new roadmap with cooler chips that eat less power? That processor was a goddamn space heater.

See: http://www.ideasinternational.com/benchmark/bench. html

Make special note of the SPECint2000 page and SPECfp2000 pages and also make note of the TPC-C scores.

The Itanium 2 takes the top three SPECint_rate_base2000 spots (128 cores), the top SPECfp_base2000 (single core) and the top two SPECfp_rate_base2000 spots (128 cores). The 64-way HP Superdome (by now they're all Itaniums, so they don't bother noting PA vs Intel) is in four of the top eight nonclustered TPC spots.

In short, the Itanium 2 is the best scientific computing chip on the market, as proven by the SPEC_int_base2000 and SPECfp_rate_base2000 stats (beating out the Power5). Also, it's not too shabby on the TPC numbers, only being edged by the IBM Power 5.

If you don't work with a 16+ core Itanium 2 or Power5, please STFU about them being market failures. They're not marketed at you.

The Itanium 2 is well ahead of every other architecture when it comes to SPECfp2000. Meanwhile, the Pentium 4 EE remains the SPECint2000 king.

The Itanium 2 is well ahead of every other architecture when it comes to SPECfp2000. Meanwhile, the Pentium 4 EE remains the SPECint2000 king.

The Itanium 2 is well ahead of every other architecture when it comes to SPECfp2000. Meanwhile, the Pentium 4 EE remains the SPECint2000 king.

The Itanium 2 is well ahead of every other architecture when it comes to SPECfp2000. Meanwhile, the Pentium 4 EE remains the SPECint2000 king.

Original
A very good explaination about Intel's iCOMP benchmarks can be found Here

However, all of Intel's recent benchamarking references to "SysMark 2004" results.

> After the Itanium failure...

Hint #1: Itanium is not a failure. As someone who has done OS work for IPF (Itanium Processor Family), I can tell you that the "failure" of the Merced chip was not a real failure. From back in 2001, the roadmap for the IPF chips never planned on being dominant until late 2005/ early 2006.

Hint #2: SPECInt and SPECfp clearly show the 1.5Ghz Itanium 2 is already the dominant chip on the market in terms of raw power.

Hint #3: Refer to hints #1 and #2 and imagine what you'll see with 3Ghz dual-core 64-way IPF-based servers due out in the next 18 months. Those $million+ monsters won't be on your desktop, but they will run all the websites and corporate datacenters for years to come.

> After the Itanium failure...

Hint #1: Itanium is not a failure. As someone who has done OS work for IPF (Itanium Processor Family), I can tell you that the "failure" of the Merced chip was not a real failure. From back in 2001, the roadmap for the IPF chips never planned on being dominant until late 2005/ early 2006.

Hint #2: SPECInt and SPECfp clearly show the 1.5Ghz Itanium 2 is already the dominant chip on the market in terms of raw power.

Hint #3: Refer to hints #1 and #2 and imagine what you'll see with 3Ghz dual-core 64-way IPF-based servers due out in the next 18 months. Those $million+ monsters won't be on your desktop, but they will run all the websites and corporate datacenters for years to come.

SPECfp: The Power4+ at 1.7 Ghz has the highest SPECfp score (1699 @ 1.7Ghz); higher than Itanium (1431 @ 1Ghz), the most recent Alpha (1482 @ 1.15Ghz), and the Pentium 4 (1229 @ 3.0Ghz).

SPECint: As far as SPECint, the Power4 is not in the lead (1113 @ 1.7Ghz), but is still respectable when compared to Pentium4's (1200 @ 3.0Ghz).

The G5/970 should do similarly or better than the G5/970 (since the G5/970 is running at 2.0Ghz vs Power4+ 1.7Ghz). One caveat is that the G5/970 has a smaller on-chip second-level cache (512kB vs 1.5MB), which will hurt its performance on some codes.

Certainly Apple's test uses a drastically different compiler than the reported SPEC results. This results in absolute numbers that are lower, but Apple's relative comparison is still reasonable, IMHO. I think it is safe to claim that Apple has really closed the gap in processor speed and now has processors with comparable performance to the fastest chips money can buy. About damn time. :)

SPECfp: The Power4+ at 1.7 Ghz has the highest SPECfp score (1699 @ 1.7Ghz); higher than Itanium (1431 @ 1Ghz), the most recent Alpha (1482 @ 1.15Ghz), and the Pentium 4 (1229 @ 3.0Ghz).

SPECint: As far as SPECint, the Power4 is not in the lead (1113 @ 1.7Ghz), but is still respectable when compared to Pentium4's (1200 @ 3.0Ghz).

The G5/970 should do similarly or better than the G5/970 (since the G5/970 is running at 2.0Ghz vs Power4+ 1.7Ghz). One caveat is that the G5/970 has a smaller on-chip second-level cache (512kB vs 1.5MB), which will hurt its performance on some codes.

Certainly Apple's test uses a drastically different compiler than the reported SPEC results. This results in absolute numbers that are lower, but Apple's relative comparison is still reasonable, IMHO. I think it is safe to claim that Apple has really closed the gap in processor speed and now has processors with comparable performance to the fastest chips money can buy. About damn time. :)

Actually, Alpha is not dead, well... mostly. It isn't very popular, but at the moment an Alpha processor is the fastest processor available according the the SPECfcp2000 Benchmarks. You do make a good point about the PowerPC 970. That thing is going to kick ass, though the AMD x86-64 will be a little better than the PowerPC 970... at least according to IBM on that earlier slashdot article. Still, the PowerPC will make the XServe more attractive then it currently is, though I am interested how much it will cost when it comes out. I find how much the current XServe really the major down point, besides the G4, as I could make a comparable server for much less. I agree with you that IBM is much more reliable than IBM. I can never say anything bad against IBM. :-) Yeah, really, it is just the hardware I don't like about the XServe. Even though I used to hate Macs, I love OS X, but I really don't think it is a great idea for servers. Well, only time will tell.

For those interested in how other processors did with these benchmarks. look here and here.

For those interested in how other processors did with these benchmarks. look here and here.

For floating point, IBM's Power4 chips are currently faster than Intel x86 chips running at more than 2.5 times the clock speed.
Case in point: SPECfp2000.

And what would the list look like if Athlon XPs/MPs were added to the list? This is a very biased list; it seems to be full of just commercial servers.

64 bit is nice, but I doubt the chip will be more powerful then an x86 chip at twice speed.

Err... get your facts straight.

For floating point, IBM's Power4 chips are currently faster than Intel x86 chips running at more than 2.5 times the clock speed.
Case in point: SPECfp2000.

Removing duplicates, here's the list:

1. Alpha 21264C at 1250MHz
2. Itanium2 at 1000MHz
3. POWER4 at 1300MHz
4. SPARC64 V at 1350MHz
5. POWER4 at 1100MHz
6. Alpha 21264C at 1224MHz
7. Alpha 21264C at 1000MHz
8. Pentium 4 at 2.8 GHz
9. Pentium 4 at 2.66 GHz
10. Pentium 4 at 2.53 GHz

Some more TPC-C benchmarks of big iron kit... found here

Technically, Specfp/SpecInt measure the perormance of a particular system, running a particular OS... The CPU is often handicapped by the choice of motherboard, for instance. Although it might be useful for a typical computer shopper to see a standardized benchmark, most people are not interested in Quantum chromodynamics or computer chess

Technically, Specfp/SpecInt measure the perormance of a particular system, running a particular OS... The CPU is often handicapped by the choice of motherboard, for instance. Although it might be useful for a typical computer shopper to see a standardized benchmark, most people are not interested in Quantum chromodynamics or computer chess

Also, article's conclusions are pretty badly flawed, esp. regarding the Alpha's future. The supposition that the POWER4 will eclipse the EV68 should be obvious but inconsequential, given how far the POWER4 is behind the EV68 in terms of getting to market, and the POWER4 has yet to convince anyone that it will be able to compete with EV7 in real world performance (of course, everyone's guesses could be wrong and EV7 could end up a big dog, but its unlikely).

Furthermore, considering the article is dated October 16th (2 days ago) I found the following statement interesting:

[Sun] will likely have refreshed its large-scale system products with the UltraSPARC-III by the time the first POWER4 systems ship, Sun's offerings will probably still be clearly outclassed.

And what about HP? They gambled too heavily on IA-64 and cut back development of their PA-RISC, which was just recently getting interesting. Now that IA-64 is delayed and will probably be a dog (notice how Intel hasn't been leaking any spec numbers?), HP is realizing what a mistake they made and has revitalized their own development; it should be enough to keep them from completely being left behind, but just barely.

I'll believe it when it shows up on the top of this list, for example.

and then when someone points out that's a very real possibility, seeing as the second one on that list is a predecessor of this new IBM machine that is purported as being 2.5 times slower.

Then, what do you do? You change lists. Now, it seems, the real proof of greatness is how well you do it non-clustered.

Could it be that Sun doesn't have these good clustered benchmarks because Sun Clusters don't offer scaleable performance as do clusters from IBM and Compaq?

What I think you're really saying is that you're only impressed if it shows up on this comparison.

I'll believe it when it shows up on the top of this list, for example.

and then when someone points out that's a very real possibility, seeing as the second one on that list is a predecessor of this new IBM machine that is purported as being 2.5 times slower.

Then, what do you do? You change lists. Now, it seems, the real proof of greatness is how well you do it non-clustered.

Could it be that Sun doesn't have these good clustered benchmarks because Sun Clusters don't offer scaleable performance as do clusters from IBM and Compaq?

What I think you're really saying is that you're only impressed if it shows up on this comparison.

The Linux test score of 241 users appears to have made the top twenty on ideasinternational's 2-tier SAP benchmark list. (That appears to be the Linux/Siemens machine in 12th place.)

Though still a long way from the leader, a Sun 10000 rated at 1410 users, it is closing in on machines like the 12-CPU IBM AS/400 at 330 users. ;)

Um, not exactly. The model second on the list is actually five different computers in a cluster running (at least) five different instances of Oracle. The Sun at the top of the list is a single computer running a single instance of Oracle. This list is the top non-cluster configurations and no RS/6000's are in the top ten.

If you want to compare, look at this Top-20 List of Benchmark results. The results we are talking about are listed on Rank 12.

I'll believe it when it shows up on the top of this list, for example. It's cheap to claim you have the fastest computer -- much more impressive to prove it in an open forum.

Does anyone know what they are basing their claims on?