Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raptor Talos II POWER9 Benchmarks Against AMD Threadripper & Intel Core i9

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by pracedru View Post
    Wow.....
    Will this threaten the x86 dominance on the desktop maybe?
    Will this threaten the x86 dominance in the super computers?
    maybe... Would be nice with some competition.
    Lol, what x86 dominance in super computers? Only 4 of the top 10 largest supercomputers in the world are x86. The x86 supercomputer fad died in the last decade.

    The top supercomputers nowadays are all based on POWER, weird Chinese chips, or Xeon Phi cards.
    Last edited by torsionbar28; 11-09-2018, 03:02 PM.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
      Lol, what x86 dominance in super computers? Only 4 of the top 10 largest supercomputers in the world are x86. The x86 supercomputer fad died in the last decade.

      The top supercomputers nowadays are all based on POWER, weird Chinese chips, or Xeon Phi cards.
      And nobody gives a shit about supercomputers.

      Comment


      • #43
        It is a very impressive machine, indeed. Still, unaffordable for me at the time. Something like this in small (less sockets, cores/threads, RAM,...) would probably gain a good amount of interest.
        Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!

        Comment


        • #44
          I would be curious to see something like QEMU user mode tests to see how well this system can run x86 binaries.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by WolfpackN64 View Post
            I would be curious to see something like QEMU user mode tests to see how well this system can run x86 binaries.
            My recommendation is HQEMU -- it has POWER support, and is fast compared to QEMU TCG. Even though system mode is a little buggy, it worked enough to boot an XP disk and the difference was stark -- "unusably slow" (normal QEMU TCG) vs. "this PC just feels a little underpowered for XP" (HQEMU). User mode is supposed to work significantly better, but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.

            http://itanium.iis.sinica.edu.tw/hqemu/

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by madscientist159 View Post

              My recommendation is HQEMU -- it has POWER support, and is fast compared to QEMU TCG. Even though system mode is a little buggy, it worked enough to boot an XP disk and the difference was stark -- "unusably slow" (normal QEMU TCG) vs. "this PC just feels a little underpowered for XP" (HQEMU). User mode is supposed to work significantly better, but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.

              http://itanium.iis.sinica.edu.tw/hqemu/
              Well, until now I didn't know there were other options still available. Might be interesting to see which one can achieve the best performance in binary translation.

              Comment


              • #47
                Man that thing is a monster, it's doing more than just keeping up... Only downside seemingly is the disproportionately increased power use, 100w... but it's not that big of a deal unless you're running an entire server farm of the stuff.

                I kinda wish they'd make consumer class CPUs to compete with ryzen and the core-i series though. I'll take higher power use if it means an open source CPU that can compete this narrowly with AMD and Intel.

                Comment


                • #48

                  Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                  Lol, what x86 dominance in super computers? Only 4 of the top 10 largest supercomputers in the world are x86. The x86 supercomputer fad died in the last decade.

                  The top supercomputers nowadays are all based on POWER, weird Chinese chips, or Xeon Phi cards.
                  Maybe on some top of the top, but when you look at Top 500 situation does not looks like that



                  These Top 500 are spreaded across 25 countries:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_countries

                  or maybe we could simplify this... so to say:

                  1. CHN 206
                  2. RoW (Rest of the World) 170
                  3. USA 124
                  Last edited by dungeon; 11-09-2018, 10:40 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Hi dungeon,

                    the above diagram shows ".. Processor Family" by "Number of Systems".
                    This means that the slowest system on the list with its 838.900.000.000.000 floating point operations per second is shown with the same weight as the fastest system.

                    In the context here probably "Processor Family" by "Performance Share" would be more adequate.
                    But even that would likely not be completely fair because GPUs/accelerators would not have been taken into account.
                    Last edited by frief; 11-10-2018, 07:45 AM. Reason: added missing "per second"

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      You can't measure just performance share, because that is relative as there usually newest are better Of these on Top 10 eldest is just 6 years old

                      That is like saying, only Top 10 games on Steam, Playstation, etc... are worthwhile and everything else is crap

                      Or like to say - only these currently play tennis and everything else is crap Of course there is some truth into this, represent just a moment in time, so relative.

                      Last edited by dungeon; 11-10-2018, 12:10 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X