Thursday Aug 09, 2007
Postscript:
Be careful when comparing performance results, as an example look at
a comment in yesterday's
"Can I use 64 threads in a chip?" posting. At
least this comment pointed out that you can use 4-8 threads in 2 chip Intel-based systems, but it was really trying to
be a stab at UltraSPARC Performance. Here was the comment:
One really needs to look at the complete data on those .pdf's
to make a fair comparison (also in the disclosure statement
below).
First: The T2000 SAP-SD used a 1.2GHz UltraSPARC T1, Sun now ships faster 1.4GHz UltraSPARC T1, and has announced 1.4GHz UltraSPARC T2. The 1.4GHz T2 has double the threads of that 1.4GHz (double the computational power).
Second: The T2000 SAP-SD result was submitted in Dec 2005, at that time it
was near the performance of the expensive 4-way POWER5 IBM p550.
Third: The 2-chip Dual-core Xeon SAP-SD result above was
submitted 18 months after the T2000 SAP-SD result.
Fourth: Different versions of the benchmark. The 2-chip
Dual-core Xeon was run with ECC 6.0 (not SAP 5.0). The a newer version
of the benchmark takes more computational work to produce the same results.
Dual-core SAP-SD result was also run with Solaris 10 on Xeon, how cool is that!
Fifth: The 2-chip quad-core Xeon SAP-SD result above was
submitted 19 months after the T2000 SAP-SD result.
Sixth: The Sun result used open-source MySQL MaxDB database,
how cool is that! The Xeon results used Oracle or MicroSoft SQL Server.
postscript:
Sun latter used Oracle, others suggested US T1 has some sort of silly database limitation - NOT TRUE!
You'll see more results soon.
Triffids, as a reminder if you work for a partner company of SAP you must
put the following disclosures when you post results. If you are not
they you don't need to put this in, but as you can see the data in
it would have allowed you to make a better comparison of systems.
Don't worry I'm not asking you to identify yourself at all.
Disclosure Statement:
Two-tier SAP ECC 5.0 Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) benchmark Sun Fire T2000 (1-way, 1 proc, 8 cores, 32 threads) 1x 1.2 GHz UltraSPARC T1, 32 GB mem, 950 SD benchmark users, 1.91 sec avg response time, Cert#2005047., MaxDB 7.5 database, Solaris 10; Two-tier SAP ECC 5.0 Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) benchmark IBM System eServer p5 550 (4-way, 4 procs, 4 cores, 8 threads) 4x 1.9 GHz POWER5+, 32GB mem, 1,000 SD benchmark users, 1.97s avg resp time, Cert#2005040, IBM DB2 Universal Database 8.2.2, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9;
Two-tier SAP ECC 6.0 Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) benchmark Fujitsu Siemens Computers PRIMERGY Model BFi20 S2 (2 procs, 4 cores, 4 threads) 2x Intel Xeon 5160, 3.0 GHz, 16GB mem, 1,020 SD benchmark users, 1.94s avg resp time, Cert#2007031, Oracle 10g, Solaris 10;
Two-tier SAP ECC 6.0 Standard Sales and Distribution (SD) benchmark Fujitsu Siemens Computers PRIMERGY Model TX300 S3 (2 procs, 8 cores, 8 threads) 4x Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor X5355 2.66 GHz, 32GB mem, 1865 SD benchmark users, 1.99s avg resp time, Cert#2007025, SQL Server 2005, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition; SAP, R/3, mySAP reg TM of SAP AG in Germany and other countries. More info www.sap.com/benchmark.
I edited in:
2 processors into Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor X5355 2.66 GHz
...and..
32 threads to the Sun Fire T2000, 1 processor / 8 cores
...in order to make the comparisons more consistent.
Wednesday Aug 08, 2007
Why does Sun designate yesterday's performance results as "estimates",
why that word? Did some Sun marketeer just throw a dart and just pick a big number. No. All
UltraSPARC T2 SPEC CPU and SPEC OMP metrics quoted are from full “reportable” runs,
but are nevertheless designated as “estimates” because they use
pre-production systems. Sun customer systems, to be announced later, are expected to perform similarly. SPEC rules do allow comparing
these preliminary scores and published result.
Is Sun the only vendor to use this clause? No. Intel and AMD have made
a long history of using preliminary numbers at chip announcements to get
the word out about their performance. Sun is just following their lead,
and trumping their performance 
Ok, back to why the word "estimates?" The SPEC CPU committee voted
to use that specific word for preliminary scores. Members include
IBM, Intel, AMD, HP, .... And every employee of a member company must follow the rules.
By license agreement, SPEC members and customers agree to run and report results as specified in each benchmark suite's documentation.
from SPEC FAQ
Postings on Sun's UltraSPARC T2 performance:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/performance_of_the_new_sun
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ultrasparc_t2_more_floating_point
http://blogs.sun.com/sprack/entry/ultrasparc_t2_world_class_crypto
OpenSPARC T2:
http://blogs.sun.com/d/entry/ultrasparc_t2_documentation_available
Ubunu (aready booted on UltraSPARC T2):
Ubuntu & Canonical & UltraSPARC T1 (May06).
As a Sun employee I try my best to follow every rule when talking about results in public, but I'm an engineer so sometimes it is hard to follow all the legalese so I try to correct things as soon as I see an error. And I do my best to remind other Sun bloggers to put in the proper disclosure statement for SPEC & TPC benchmark results. Though quite
honestly I wish SPEC & TPC would streamline the rules, make them more consistent, and minimize the lengthy disclosure statements.
Of course because Sun is in the lead and because I made some suggestions, I'm sure this entry will be fully scrutinized by every
competitor. If I made errors let me know in the comments and I will correct them.
Disclosure Statement
SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, and SPEComp registered trademarks of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Results from www.spec.org as of August 6, 2007. Actually this one is short because I didn't put any
specific results in this posting, the ones at the links have the more extensive disclosures because they show scores & results.
Tuesday Aug 07, 2007
Beyond UltraSPARC T2 what other technologies matter? There are two more keys to Sun providing such effective performance in the
new single-chip Sun UltraSPARC T2 64-thread processor, that is Solaris (and
now of course OpenSolaris) and Sun Studio compilers. Here is a nice slide of the history of hardware history of SPARC, I borrowed this on from
an entry in "On the Record"
An important thing to remember
that besides Sun's long history with SPARC, we've also lead the way in parallelism. Over 15 years ago, Solaris supported 64-way SPARC systems and
provided near-linear scaling. For those of you old enough to remember, at
that time IBM, SGI, HP, and everyone else thought there was no way Sun
could produce effective 64-way systems. They were wrong and now our competitors have finally
all have introduced systems with lots of processors and/or threads.
Solaris and Sun Studio compilers have a LONG history and lots of experience with industrial-strength applications with lots of threads.
Solaris and Sun Studio compilers were great at scaling to 64-way systems 15 years ago, with a lot more experience and hard work we are even better at scaling and will scale to lots more threads right now. Many thanks to all of those compiler & OS engineers!
Postings on Sun's UltraSPARC T2 performance:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/performance_of_the_new_sun
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ultrasparc_t2_more_floating_point
http://blogs.sun.com/sprack/entry/ultrasparc_t2_world_class_crypto
OpenSPARC T2:
http://blogs.sun.com/d/entry/ultrasparc_t2_documentation_available
...I've focused on Solaris, but there are options, for
example Ubuntu. Ubuntu has already booted on the UltraSPARC T2.
As as a reminder Ubuntu and Canonical proved it on an UltraSPARC T1 almost 14 months ago, see this article on that work.
Tuesday Aug 07, 2007
More about floating-point on the Sun UltraSPARC T2 in this posting, In
the previous posting SPECfp_2006 scores and the UltraSPARC T2 design being open-sourced were discussed.
In the UltraSPARC T2 there are eight floating-point units that are well suited for scientific applications. Based upon preliminary runs the
Sun UltraSPARC T2 processor at 1.4 GHz beats all single chip scores
showing 14230(est)/15081(est) SPECompMbase2001/SPECompMpeak2001.
How do these preliminary runs (we must use the term "estimated" by SPEC rules) compare to SPECompMbase2001/SPECompMpeak2001 scores?
- These Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz processor scores beat the best single-chip
IBM p520 POWER5+ 1.9GHz processor published result by 85%.
- ...Sun is waiting for POWER6 4.7GHz results, maybe UltraSPARC T2 results will scare IBM from ever publishing a single-chip result?
Benchmark description:
The SpecOMP benchmark is a test of the performance of 9 High
Performance computing applications. It is used to compare the
performance of shared memory servers. All C/C++ and FORTRAN
applications in this suite use the OpenMP programming model that
provides a portable, scalable model for developing parallel
applications for platforms ranging from the desktop to the
supercomputer.
The OpenMP Application Program Interface (API) supports
multi-platform shared-memory parallel programming in C/C++ and Fortran
on all architectures, from the largest Unix servers to the small
Windows NT platforms.
Disclosure statement:
All UltraSPARC T2 SPEC CPU metrics quoted are from full “reportable” runs,
but are nevertheless designated as “estimates” because they use preproduction
systems. SPEC, and SPEComp registered trademarks of Standard Performance
Evaluation Corporation.
Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz (1 chip, 8 cores, 64 threads) 14230 (est)/ 15081 (est) SPECompMbase2001/SPECompMpeak2001.
Competitive results from www.spec.org as of
August 6, 2007. IBM p520 1.9GHz (1 chip, 2 cores, 4 threads) published 8141/8174 SPECompMbase2001/SPECompMpeak2001.
Tuesday Aug 07, 2007
Sun UltraSPARC T2 is an amazing chip and very fast! The UltraSPARC T2 features several industry firsts:
- Eight cores and 64 threads
- Integrated 10 GbE networking and I/O
- Dedicated, cryptographic and floating point units per core
- 10 cryptographic functions supported with hardware
- open-source design: www.opensparc.net
Based upon preliminary runs, the Sun UltraSPARC T2 processor at 1.4 GHz,
beat all single chip scores showing 78.3 est. SPECint_rate2006.
How do these preliminary runs (we must use the term "estimated" by
SPEC rules) compare to SPECint_rate2006 results.
- These Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz processor scores beat the best single-chip
IBM POWER6 4.7GHz processor published result by 29%.
- These Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz processor scores beat the best single-chip
estimated scores of the AMD Barcelona by 23%.
- These Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz processor scores beat the best single-chip
published scores of the 2.66GHz Intel X5355 (Clovertown) by 48%.
Based upon preliminary runs, the Sun UltraSPARC T2 processor at 1.4 GHz,
beat all single chip scores showing 62.3 est. SPECfp_rate2006.
How do these preliminary runs (we must use the term "estimated" by
SPEC rules) compare to SPECfp_rate2006 results.
- These Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz processor scores beat the best
published single-chip IBM POWER6 4.7GHz processor result by 7%.
- These Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz processor scores beat the best single-chip estimated scores of the AMD Barcelona by 11%.
- These Sun UltraSPARC T2 1.4GHz processor scores beat the best single-chip
published scores of the 2.66GHz Intel X5355 (Clovertown) by 66%.
Performance per core doesn't matter GHz doesn't matter, what matters
is numbers of cores, efficiency, and design of the chip! Competitors
are saying that UltraSPARC T2 is proprietary... this makes no sense.
both UltraSPARC T1 and UltraSPARC T2 are open source designs (www.opensparc.net). You do not find the
latest design of Intel, AMD, or IBM as open source designs.
Disclosure Statement:
All Sun UltraSPARC T2 SPEC CPU metrics quoted are from full “reportable”
runs, but are nevertheless designated as “estimates” because they use
preproduction systems. SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp registered trademarks of
Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Sun UltraSPARC T2
1.4GHz (1 chip, 8 cores, 64 threads) 78.3 est. SPECint_rate2006,
62.3 est. SPECfp_rate2006.
Competitive results from www.spec.org as of August 6, 2007.
IBM POWER6 4.7GHz (1 chip, 2 cores, 4 threads) 60.9. SPECint_rate2006,
58.0 SPECfp_rate2006.
AMD Barcelona 2.6 GHz (1 chip, 4 cores, 4 threads) 63.9 est SPECint_rate2006,
56.3 est. SPECfp_rate2006. Barcelona estimates based upon "The Register"
article stating 2.6GHz quad is 21% and 50% faster than Intel 2.66 system.
Fujitsu RX300 Intel X5355 2.66 GHz (1 chip, 4 cores, 4 threads) 52.8 SPECint_rate2006, 47.5 SPECfp_rate2006.
Reminder: The Niagara 2 score was obtained from a full "reportable" SPEC
run, but is designated as an "estimate" because a pre-production system
was used.
...more information on the UltraSPARC T2 later today.
Monday Aug 06, 2007
Many news sources now covering UltraSPARC T2, the new high-performance chip from Sun.
This new UltraSPARC T2 chip leads in many ways. I'll cover the performance numbers tomorrow.
For now:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;898889798
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN0625780420070806
http://www.channelweb.co.uk/vnunet/news/2195718/sun-lifts-lid-niagara-processor
etc..
For some of my previous comments:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/news_trickles_out_on_niagara2
Please remember that the previous generation chip, the UltraSPARC T1,
just set an application-tier world record (all details at link). How many times has the "old" chip with half as many threads set a world record weeks before the new one is announced?
A final note. I venture that this chip is going to lead for database, application tier, and of course web tier, oh and don't forget HPC, yes it is that versatile.
Tuesday Apr 10, 2007
Solaris 10 outperforms Linux by more than 25% on some tests
when running the same applications on the same hardware. This helps
prove that Solaris is a very high-performance operating system.
Pro/E is the foremost MCAD system and is distributed to major
engineering corporations worldwide. Most Product Life Management
systems (PLM) have seamless links to this biggest and best MCAD
system. This includes all of the major MCAE ISV applications.
The Pro/E Wildfire 3 OCUS V5 benchmarks were used to demonstrate this
Solaris superiority over Linux. These benchmarks are endorsed by Pro/E users as
being very representative of typical and most frequently used
operations that include large memory requirements associated with the
increasingly commonplace large assemblies now seen that exceed 32-bit
capabilities.
The Solaris Studio compilers and associated performance libraries
continue to make applications perform better on X64 platforms
relative to builds of the same applications using other
compilers, performance libraries, and operating systems on the
same platforms.
In fact a recent Desktop Engineering Article
demonstrated that Sun Ultra 40 M2 desktops with four large capacity
146 GB 15K rpm internal drives, 2-sockets with dual core 3.0 GHz
Opteron 2222 processors, and 32 GB of 667 MHz DDR2 memory (8 4 GB
dimms) can function essentially as a personal server
permitting the engineer to perform design operations with his MCAD
system and concurrently perform CPU and I/O intensive design
verification
analyses:
http://www.deskeng.com/Articles/Feature/A-Server-on-Every-Desk-200702081652.html
The Sun desktops use the nVidia Quadro FX framebuffers that allow the user to
perform MCAD or even more graphics intensive operations in a minimum of rendering time. Sun desktops
equipped with the high end framebuffer offerings have set world
records with graphics intensive benchmarks such as the SPEC APC
UGS-NX3 benchmark:
http://www.spec.org/gpc/apc.data/specapc_nx3_summary.html
as well as the Ensight engineering visualization
benchmark:
http://www.ensight.com/rendering-performance-tests.html
The Pro/E Wildfire 3 MCAD OCUS V5 (time in seconds)
Solaris 10 vs. Linux on X64 (Sun Ultra 40 M2 - same hardware)
| |
Total |
Graphics |
CPU |
Disk I/O |
Solaris 10
%Faster |
| 32-bit Normal Benchmark |
| Solaris 10 |
1810 |
913 |
893 |
96 |
25% |
| SuSE Linux 10 |
2271 |
990 |
1278 |
107 |
| 64-bit Large-Memory Benchmark |
| Solaris 10 |
5224 |
1202 |
4008 |
388 |
6% |
| SuSE Linux 10 |
5563 |
1373 |
4164 |
441 |
Configuration
Sun Ultra 40 M2 desktop
2x2.8 GHz DC Opteron 2220's
8 GB (2x4x1 667 MHz DDR2 dimms)
1x nVidia Quadro FX 5500
Solaris 10
64-bit SUSE Linux Enterprise for Desktop (SLED 10)
Application: 64-bit Pro/E Wildfire 3
Benchmark: Pro/E OCUS V5 (32-bit Normal benchmark, 64-bit Large Memory benchmark)
Tuesday Feb 27, 2007
Solaris How to guides, many people aren't aware, but they are on www.sun.com, specifically: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/howto_guides.jsp
Wednesday Feb 21, 2007
Sun-PostgreSQL win shows benefit of Solaris over Linux. Pretty interesting
trends happening in open-source databases.
You can read more at:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;413111662
This also shows why you can't just look at over-optimized benchmarks
link TPC-C, one needs to look at real factors in the datacenter. For
TPC-C issues you see previous posts:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/judging_by_the_wrong_things
...and also some questionable(?) changes over time:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ibm_tpc_c_more_hints
Monday Feb 05, 2007
Solaris can improve your performance and Solaris gives you great features.
Sun really feels that Solaris has a strong lead over other operating
systems. We've shown various head-to-head comparisons on this blog. You
can see links to a few of those below.
It is also important to remember that Sun also has many important customers
who are running RedHat Linux, SuSE Linux, and Windows. So a variety of
benchmarks are also done with those, as you can see in last week's entry
on SPECjAppServer.
So expect to see results on a mix of operating systems as Sun fully
understands different customers have different needs. We still believe
most can get many benefits from moving to Solaris -- so if you are one
of those people who can switch, the evidence continues to mount that
it is a very good idea to use Solaris.
January 17, 2007
Variety ways Solaris is leading Linux
December 20, 2006
Solaris again beating Linux on benchmark
January 03, 2007
update: Solaris beating Linux Performance
September 22, 2006
Yet another Solaris v. Linux performance comparison
EDA vendors supporting Solaris:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/another_strong_isv_votes_for
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/eda_vendors_seeing_solaris_benefits
afternote:
I forgot to mention that Solaris is also Open:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/
...not something you see with IBM's AIX or HP/UX.
Tuesday Jan 30, 2007
As we've shown in previous blog entries, lots of Solaris benefits in terms of robustness
and performance, etc. ISVs and customers are picking up on this.
Today, Sun announced with Mentor Graphics announced support of x64/x86 platforms powered by the Solaris 10 OS. This is on a wide variety of Mentor's products:
Questa, ModelSim, O-In, Calibre nmDRC and LVS, Boardstation XE and the Design for Test suite.
Press release:
http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2007-01/sunflash.20070130.1.xml
See yesterday's post for info on other EDA vendors and Solaris. more coming...
Monday Jan 29, 2007
As we've shown in previous blog entries, lots of Solaris benefits in terms of robustness
and performance, etc.
We're seeing more and more vendors aligning around Solaris. For example, in the
EDA market there was last years announcement by Synopsys to support VCS on Solaris 10
(on both X64 and SPARC). Press release:
http://www.synopsys.com/news/announce/press2005/sun_snps_vcs_pr.html
Also Cadence is showing broad support across its product lines for Solaris 10 for
both SPARC and Opteron. Press release:
http://www.cadence.com/company/newsroom/press_releases/pr.aspx?xml=010306_sun
more coming...
Monday Jan 22, 2007
As I've mentioned here, using Solaris can really help your performance:
(ex:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/update_solaris_beating_linux_performance
Last night you probably also saw various leaks on yahoo about things that Sun and Intel
are up to on Solaris. To get the straight scope go to:
http://www.sun.com/2007-0122/feature/index.jsp?intcmp=hp2007jan22_intel_live
Wednesday Jan 17, 2007
On this Blog, I've been showing a variety of Solaris vs. Linux performance
comparisons (ex:
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/update_solaris_beating_linux_performance
As you know there are more than performance reasons to like Solaris, some of those are
given in the online article called "Sun Goes After Linux" by Andy Patrizio on internetnews.com. That link is:
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3653871
Thursday Jan 11, 2007
Sun Blade X8420 is 1.9x faster than the
best Intel Woodcrest system on SPECint_rate2006 and is also 2.1x faster than the best Intel
Woodcrest on SPECfp_rate2006. The Sun Blade X8420 is also 22% faster than 4-way Itanium2 dual-core on
SPECfp_rate.
Sun Blade X8420 delivered the best result with SPECint_rate2006 score of 93.1, using Solaris 10 and Studio 11 combo. The Sun Blade X8420 also
delivered the best result of of 87.3 for the SPECfp_rate2006
benchmark for all x86 systems.
SPEC CPU2006 Performance Charts (bigger is better, selected recent results)
SPECint_rate2006
| System |
Processors |
Performance Results |
| Type |
GHz |
Chips |
Cores |
Threads |
Peak |
Base |
| Sun Blade X8420 |
AMD Opteron 8220 |
2.8 |
4 |
8 |
8 |
93.1 |
80.4 |
| Fujitsu CELSIUS R640 |
Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest) |
3.0 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
50.3 |
48.8 |
| Sun Ultra 40 M2 |
AMD Opteron 2220SE |
2.8 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
48.8 |
41.9 |
| HP DL585 |
Opteron 854 |
2.8 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
46.9 |
41.4 |
| Supermicro X7DBE |
Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest) |
3.0 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
--- |
45.2 |
| Sun Fire X4200 |
Opteron 285 |
2.6 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
42.8 |
37.8 |
| Fujjitsu RX220 |
Opteron 280 |
2.4 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
40.0 |
35.7 |
| Sun Fire X4200 |
Opteron 256 |
3.0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
26.4 |
23.1 |
| HP DL585 |
Opteron 854 |
2.8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
25.2 |
22.3 |
| Dell PrecWork 380 |
Pentium EE |
3.73 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
-- |
23.1 |
| HP DL380 G4 |
Pentium 4 |
3.8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
-- |
20.9 |
SPECfp_rate2006
| System |
Processors |
Performance Results |
| Type |
GHz |
Chips |
Cores |
Threads |
Peak |
Base |
| Sun Blade X8420 |
AMD Opteron 8220 |
2.8 |
4 |
8 |
8 |
87.3 |
82.5 |
| HP rx6600 |
Itanium2 dual-core |
1.6 |
4 |
8 |
8 |
71.4 |
69.1 |
| HP DL585 |
Opteron 854 |
2.8 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
49.3 |
45.6 |
| FSC CELSIUS R640 |
Intel Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest), WinXP Pro |
3.0 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
42.5 |
41.4 |
| Sun Fire X4200 |
Opteron 285 |
2.6 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
38.1 |
36.0 |
Results as of 09 Jan 2007 from www.spec.org.
Benchmark Description
SPEC CPU2006 is made up of two suites of benchmarks, CFP2006 and
CINT2006. CFP2006 targets floating-point performance, while CINT2006
targets integer performance.
Each suite has two different measures. First is the CPU measure, which
is the performance on the suite as a single stream. This can be either
a single thread or automatic compiled parallel run. This measure is
further defined by base and optimized runs. Base uses the same compiler
flags for all kernels, where optimized is allowed to use different
compiler flags for each kernel. Results are compared against a baseline
system run that was standardized by SPEC.
The second measure is Rate. It is a measure of how many CPU measures
can be run at a time. Typically, it is run as n processes on n
processors. It shows how well the same job mix can run on a system
under some load. It also is run as a base and optimized set of
results.
Disclosure Statement:
SPEC, SPECint reg tm of Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation.
Results from www.spec.org as of 1/9/07.
Sun Blade X8420 (AMD Opteron 8220, 4chips/8cores, Solaris 10) 93.1 SPECint_rate2006.
Sun Blade X8420 (AMD Opteron 8220, 4chips/8cores, Solaris 10) 87.3 SPECint_rate2006.
Results Summary
| Results |
|
X8420 |
|
93.1 SPECint_rate2006 |
|
X8420 |
|
87.3 SPECfp_rate2006 |
| Reference Date: |
|
Jan 09, 2007 |
| System: |
|
Sun Blade X8420, 64GB memory |
| Processors: |
|
four 2.8 GHz Opteron 8220 |
| Software: |
|
Solaris 10, Sun Studio 11 |
|
|
|
|
>First
Intel already ships X5355 2.66 GHz and h...
It strikes me that benchmarks for computers are im...
Triffid, Glad you agree that these Xeon results we...
>ok TWO quad-cores 19 months latter is twice th...
We'll see...
but customers do see the value of U...
>reducing storage power and cooling costs by 60...
I'm still waiting for Oracle or DB2 to publis...