Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IBM Opens Up POWER Architecture For Licensing

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    Amigas were widely used in video production back in the time, for example for science fiction shows like Babylon 5, seaQuest DSV and Max Headroom. They were also widely used by graphics artists like Andy Warhol.

    Saying that they weren't good for anything but gaming and demos/music is showing nothing but a lack of knowledge about these nice machines.
    You're apparently one of those "enthusiasts" I was talking about... yeah, just because people use something doesn't make it the best tool for the job... after all, people still have an irrational preference for macs for graphic design...

    No one's saying Amigas weren't nice machines, sure they were, for their time... but x86-based PC's simply outran them technically in the end.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
      Ive read these guerilla marketeers claims but im still sceptical. Can anyone back up Power superiority up with some cold hard benchmarks or links?
      umm you mean the fact that several PowerPC machines are always listed in the top 10 supercomputers isn't good enough?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Obscene_CNN View Post
        umm you mean the fact that several PowerPC machines are always listed in the top 10 supercomputers isn't good enough?
        Based on one benchmark and variable number of processors. If dont know Cell yes the IBM creation is kinda textbook example that FLOPS doesnt really matter here in real world.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
          Based on one benchmark and variable number of processors. If dont know Cell yes the IBM creation is kinda textbook example that FLOPS doesnt really matter here in real world.
          well here are some SAP Standard Application Benchmarks. (Note that 8 core Power 7+ chips could be used to level the playing field )

          http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/sd2tier.epx

          (POWER7+, 3.41 Ghz) IBM Flex System p270 Compute Node, 4 Processors / 24 Cores

          Dialog Steps Per Hour : 4103000
          SAPS : 68380
          Fully Processed Line Items Per Hour : 1367670


          (Intel Xeon Processor E5-4650, 2.7 Ghz) Dell PowerEdge R820, 4 Processors / 32 Cores

          Dialog Steps Per Hour : 4241000
          SAPS : 70680
          Fully Processed Line Items Per Hour : 1413670

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Obscene_CNN View Post
            well here are some SAP Standard Application Benchmarks. (Note that 8 core Power 7+ chips could be used to level the playing field )

            http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/sd2tier.epx

            (POWER7+, 3.41 Ghz) IBM Flex System p270 Compute Node, 4 Processors / 24 Cores

            Dialog Steps Per Hour : 4103000
            SAPS : 68380
            Fully Processed Line Items Per Hour : 1367670


            (Intel Xeon Processor E5-4650, 2.7 Ghz) Dell PowerEdge R820, 4 Processors / 32 Cores

            Dialog Steps Per Hour : 4241000
            SAPS : 70680
            Fully Processed Line Items Per Hour : 1413670

            Based on these synthetic benchmarks it looks like Intel holds the performance crown

            Thanks for helping me

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
              Based on these synthetic benchmarks it looks like Intel holds the performance crown

              Thanks for helping me
              Not exactly.

              the intel system(not the cpu) held a performance advantage of about 4% in those benchmarks. However it did so with 8 more cores. The IBM system benchmarked used 6 core processors but could have used 8 core processors. That would have boosted the performance of the powerpc system's score by 33%. Also they make the power7+ chips that clock over 5GHz which hands the performance edge to powerpc by a land slide. http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/04/i...igh-as-5-5ghz/

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Obscene_CNN View Post
                Not exactly.

                the intel system(not the cpu) held a performance advantage of about 4% in those benchmarks. However it did so with 8 more cores. The IBM system benchmarked used 6 core processors but could have used 8 core processors. That would have boosted the performance of the powerpc system's score by 33%. Also they make the power7+ chips that clock over 5GHz which hands the performance edge to powerpc by a land slide. http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/04/i...igh-as-5-5ghz/
                Who cares about the core count, money is more important. I think the X64 system costs a fraction of the Power system. SAPS/$$ count more then bigger dicks.
                Last edited by dibal; 08-10-2013, 03:33 AM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by newwen View Post
                  Doesn't Freescale manufacture CPUs with POWER cores licensed from IBM?
                  No, Freescale is an original designer of Power Architecture (just as IBM) and as such hold a license of its own, and they are free to issue licenses to others if they choose. You can obtain a license to design Power Architecture processors of your own from Power.org, or you can purchase hard and soft macros from a variety of vendors to include in your CPU, microcontroller or SoC. IBM is one of several issuers of Power Arch designs, and this news is about them letting highest end core be licensed to others. There are several IBM designed Power Arch cores already out there for companies to license, like the PPC603e, 401, 405, 440, 450, 464, 476, 750, PPE and A2. POWER8 will join this line up.
                  There are several companies that have done entirely original core Power Arch core designs of their own, not using existing designs from Motorola/Freescale or IBM. P.A. Semi, QED and Exponential are three. Power Architecture isn't as closed as most like to think (and argue).

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post
                    Does anyone know what the power comsumption levels are on modern ibm architectures? Could they create an apu with the power of an intel core i3 using say 35w? It is a shame windows doesn't support power architecture otherwise we could have a proper competitor to intel and amd.
                    Freescale is selling a processor (the QorIQ T4240) with 12x 64-bit e6500 cores, each dual threaded (at 70% efficency) and with yet to be beaten AltiVec SIMD-accelerators and 8 MB L2 cache. Also on the SoC is 16x Gbit Ethernet ports (or 4x 10 Gbit), 4x PCIe 3.0 buses, 3x DDR3 controllers and 2x SATA2 controllers, network, pattern and cryptography accelerators and hardware hypervisor for virtualization and partitioning. And aggressive power saving capabilities, such as entirely powering off individual cores (and the AltiVec units), or other subsystems on chip. This processor is running at up to 2.2 GHz, is pushing >200 GFLOPS and with a TDP of ~30 W.

                    No integrated GPU though. But with nVidia joining OpenPOWER, they are certainly interested in such design.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Obscene_CNN View Post
                      Not exactly.

                      the intel system(not the cpu) held a performance advantage of about 4% in those benchmarks. However it did so with 8 more cores. The IBM system benchmarked used 6 core processors but could have used 8 core processors. That would have boosted the performance of the powerpc system's score by 33%. Also they make the power7+ chips that clock over 5GHz which hands the performance edge to powerpc by a land slide. http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/04/i...igh-as-5-5ghz/
                      Look

                      But Power achieved those performance numbers with 96 threads against intels 64... those 5GHz chips dont look like 130W TDP which is AFAIK intels max TDP. So again you are comparing Apples to Oranges in single benchmark. Look corporations are most interested in performance in their workloads and performance per dollar and there IBM currently fails horribly with its 100% margins.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X