benchmarkingblog

Elisabeth Stahl on Benchmarking and IT Optimization

Archive for the ‘SPECjEnterprise2010’ Category

And the Oscar Goes to . . . IBM

with 3 comments

It seems as if just a few years ago I actually used to get excited about the big night. The big night that was last night, the 87th Academy Awards. I used to watch with friends, with family. I even went to an awards party once.

In the past I even saw the movies that won — before they won.

And I think that’s how some of us have been feeling lately about industry standard performance benchmarks. Remember the good old days of leapfrogging? Of vicious ads and blogs? Of fights over TPC-C?

But recently I was super impressed with a brand new IBM publish last week of the SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark. SPECjEnterprise2010 emulates an automobile dealership, manufacturing, supply chain management and order/inventory system and was designed to stress the Java EE application server. It’s an excellent measure of middleware.

The new IBM result running WebSphere and DB2 was the best Intel “Haswell” EP result, over 31% greater per core than the just published Oracle result with WebLogic.(1) And of course, the flagship IBM POWER8 result is the #1 per core result in the industry, over 79% greater per core than the new Oracle x86 result.(2)

At least I still have the passion for benchmarks. Because nowadays my interest in the Academy Awards pretty much revolves around a few dresses on the red carpet. And I can get that not by staying up all night but with a couple of photos online the next morning.

************************************************

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

(1) 36-core(2×18-core Processor) Oracle Server X5-2, WL 12.1.3 – 18800.76 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS, 522.24 EjOPS per app core. 28-core(2×14-core processors) IBM System x3650 M5 Lenovo Server, WAS 8.5.5.4, DB2 10.5 – 19282.14 EjOPS, 688.65 EjOPS/core.
(2) 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.52 GHz) db running DB2 10.5 / 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.52 GHz) app running WebSphere 8.5, SPECjEnterprise2010 (22,543 Enterprise jAppServer Operations Per Second (EjOPS), 939EjOPS/core) .

Source: http://www.spec.org. All results current as of 2/23/15.

Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,

,,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

February 23, 2015 at 9:41 am

Awesome POWER8 Benchmarks, Awesome Dessert

with 3 comments

New frozen yogurt establishments seem to be popping up everywhere. You know, the ones with the cute name, the pink and green decor, the pink and green spoons to match.

A key differentiator in this new wave of stores is the do-it-yourself aspect. But even more extraordinary is the mind-boggling array of toppings. Dozens, in some cases hundreds. I especially love the portfolio of berries that are offered — but my favorite happens to be the small pieces of chocolate that look like rocks.

These stores have pretty much bloomed everywhere these days — whether rural, suburban, or urban area. I had seen them first in Manhattan a couple of years ago; but I knew they had become a true game changer when I located one in, of all places, suburban Poughkeepsie.

IBM today has just formally announced new POWER8 systems, servers that allow data centers to manage staggering data requirements with unprecedented speed, all built on an open server platform. This game-changing infrastructure represents IBM’s singular commitment to providing higher-value, open technologies for the latest types of applications, including cloud, big data and analytics, and mobile and social computing.

Of course, performance is a key factor in this groundbreaking technology. Some of us may have heard about these new systems earlier; but today is the day if you are really into performance — and this dessert is the best part. IBM has just added 6 new #1 benchmarks to the already huge portfolio of existing record benchmarks. Let’s take a look at these for the new IBM Power S824:

 

What’s especially interesting about these 6 is that they represent a wide portfolio of excellence and value in a real world environment — from specific applications that you run everyday, like sales, payroll, and order management, to Java and even technical computing. And these are varied workloads (just like all those berries) from various vendors, including Oracle, that have been shown via popular and well-accepted third party benchmarks to surpass all other systems, including x86.

 

Benchmarks, pick your favorite #1.

Mine is still the chocolate that looks like rocks.

************************************************

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

(1)IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 192 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, dialog response: 0.98 seconds, line items/hour: 2,317,330, dialog steps/hour: 6.952,000 SAPS: 115,870 database response time (dialog/update): 0.011 sec / 0.019sec, CPU utilization: 99%, Certification #2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
(2)The 12-core IBM Power S824 (3.52 GHz) achieved the best 12-core extra-large Oracle E-business 12.1.3 benchmark Payroll batch result (1,090,909 checks per hour). Source: http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/performance-scalability/index.html
(3)The 6-core IBM Power S824 (4.1 GHz) database server achieved the best overall Siebel CRM 8.1.1.4 result (50,000 users).
Source: http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
(4)The 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.52 GHz) db running DB2 10.5 / 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.52 GHz) app running WebSphere 8.5 is the best 24-core SPECjEnterprise2010 configuration (22,543 Enterprise jAppServer Operations Per Second (EjOPS)) . Source: http://www.spec.org
(5)The 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.5 GHz, POWER8) is the best 24-core system (1370 SPECfp_rate2006 result, 24 cores, 4 chips, 6 cores/chip, 8 threads/core). http://www.spec.org
(6)The 24-core IBM Power S824 (3.5 GHz, POWER8) is the best 24-core system (1750 SPECint_rate2006 result, 24 cores, 4 chips, 6 cores/chip, 8 threads/core). http://www.spec.org

All results current as of April 28, 2014.

SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,,

,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

April 28, 2014 at 7:24 am

Born to Run Benchmarks

with 9 comments

With apologies to Bruce, you can’t start a fire with a SPARC. A fire of proof points, that is.

In two different instances Oracle’s recent announcements on SPARC benchmark data have been lacking — and certainly couldn’t start any flame of passion at OpenWorld.

The first involved the announcement of the SPARC M6-32 server and engineered system. The press release only had a footnote for “estimated” performance of some mysterious sort. Oracle’s benchmark website actually discussed some benchmarks for this new system — but 1) there was no competitive information and 2) they were on Oracle’s very own benchmarks.

In the second case, the SPARC T5-8 was highlighted on the Java end-to-end SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark. A record was claimed — in actuality, the IBM Power 780 had 19% greater overall performance and 49% greater application server performance per core than the Oracle system.(1)

Additionally, keep in mind that whenever costs are presented in Oracle’s comparisons, they need to be scrutinized to the highest degree. What storage is included, what software is included, what support and maintenance is included? Is an apple being compared to a pineapple?

(P.S. After I wrote this I discovered that today is actually Bruce Springsteen’s birthday. How weird is that?)

************************************************

(1)SPECjEnterprise2010 result of 36,571.36 on 1 x SPARC T5-8 (8 chips, 128 cores, 3.6 GHz SPARC T5);Oracle WebLogic 12c (12.1.2);Oracle Database 12c (12.1.0.1) vs. IBM result of 10,902.30 on 1 x IBM Power 780(8 chips, 32 cores, 4.42 GHz POWER7+);WebSphere Application Server V8.5;IBM DB2 Universal Database 10.1; Source: http://www.spec.org. Results as of 9/23/13.

Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

September 23, 2013 at 9:22 pm

Shoe Fetish or Benchmark Comparison ?

with 5 comments

Last month I visited the Fashion Institute of Technology’s new exhibit “Shoe Obsession.” And for anyone who relishes shoes, this was the place to be. You enter the dark rooms and the glass cases are absolutely glowing in light, highlighting the SHOES. There’s Manolo Blahnik, Christian Louboutin, Prada and many more, as far as the eye can see. Each shoe is made out of a huge array of materials — plastics, metals, beads, ribbons, velvet, even mirrors. Many have 6 inch heels. Or even higher. Gorgeous.

But of course most of these shoes you could never even wear — and not because there’s only one of them. These shoes don’t even make sense as shoes. What ultimately matters is that you can’t do what you need to do with shoes which is walk in them.

Many times I see benchmark comparisons that don’t really focus on the right things as well. Here’s why in comparisons of systems, cores ultimately matter:

  • Cores are the processing units for computation.
  • Cores are used to charge for software licensing.
  • Cores represent a more apples-to-apples method of comparing systems of varying technologies.
  • The right Cores enable efficient virtualization and consolidation which ultimately leads to better total cost of ownership.

Interesting that when these facts are so clear that Oracle’s newest ad on the front page of the Wall Street Journal totally ignores processor cores and many other important components in the comparisons. As you look at the SPECjEnterprise2010 comparisons, here is what you need to know:

  • The IBM benchmark result is from 2012, the Oracle result is brand new. As we know, this is a lifetime of difference for benchmarking.
  • Oracle needed 4x the number of processing cores and 3x the amount of memory than IBM for this benchmark. See all the details here and here.
  • The IBM POWER7+ Power 780 actually has over 1.5x more performance per core than the Oracle SPARC T5 system.(1)
  • Cost is not even a metric of this benchmark. And note that server cost does not include storage and the all expensive software licensing costs, which by the way, are calculated per core.

 

I like shoes and benchmark comparisons which make sense. Give me my New Balance any day. I can walk for miles in them, they look good, and their TCO screams.

Bottom line: Oracle’s latest comparative advertisement targeting IBM Power Systems, like so many before them, strains credulity. Caveat emptor.

************************************************

(1)SPARC T5-8 (8-chip, 128 cores), 27,843.57 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS; IBM Power 780 (8-chips, 32 cores), 10,902.30 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS. Sources: http://www.spec.org. Results current as of 5/23/13.
SPEC and the benchmark name SPECjEnterprise are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation.

The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,

Written by benchmarkingblog

May 23, 2013 at 11:45 am

Oracle’s SPARC T5 and M5 Benchmarks: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

with 21 comments

I think I’ve said this before but one of my most absolute favorite movies is Groundhog Day. (Attention: spoiler is coming but since the fricking movie is from 1993 and most of us were old even way back then, I don’t think I will be ruining it for anyone.) Groundhog Day is an American comedy film directed by Harold Ramis and starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell (who by the way I’ve been told that I sort of look like which is really cool since she does L’Oréal ads). In the film an arrogant and egocentric TV weatherman, covering the annual Groundhog Day event, finds himself repeating the same day again and again.

The phrase “Groundhog Day” now has entered common lexicon as a reference to an unpleasant situation that continually repeats, or seems to.

And I would say that is exactly what we have with Oracle’s new SPARC T5 and M5 benchmarks.

Just as with every Oracle processor announcement, the benchmark results do the same thing. Many of the claims are Oracle’s own benchmarks that are not published and audited. There are a small number of industry standard benchmarks — and of course these are ones where it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to compare to other relevant results. For price claims, Oracle, as they’ve done in the past, only factors in the price of the pizza box – make sure you add in the all-important software and storage.

Let’s take a look at the T5 and M5 benchmark results:

  • SAP: The IBM POWER7+ with DB2 10 SAP SD 2-tier result from back in September was 1.3x greater per core than the M5 and 1.9x greater than the T5 result.(1) The IBM average database request time was also much better and the CPU utilization of the IBM system was also more effective.
  • TPC-C: An IBM POWER6 result from 2008, 2 generations ago, is 42% higher per core than the new T5 result on this OLTP benchmark. An IBM POWER7 result from 2010, 1 generation ago, is 2.2x better performance per core than the Oracle result. (2) The price for all Oracle database software support used in computing the price/performance for this benchmark is $2300/year – I can only guess what you get for that. Also note that this benchmark used Oracle Partitioning which may not be realistic for your real world workloads. The Oracle database software is not even available until September.
  • SPECjEnterprise2010: Oracle’s T5 result needed four times the number of database cores, four times the amount of memory and significantly more storage than the IBM POWER7 result. (3)
  • SPECjbb2013: For Java business, let’s run a benchmark that can only be compared with a couple of ProLiants, one of our old T4s, and a Supermicro. (4)
  • SPECcpu: IBM Power Systems is #1 – don’t forget to look at number of cores for integer and floating point claims.
  • TPC-H: Ha, got you. There is no TPC-H. Funny, was expecting one based on what we saw for the T4. I wonder why . . .
  • The other benchmark claims? These are once again ones that either are Oracle’s own benchmarks or ones nobody cares about because they don’t look like anything we actually run. Chance of departure from useful benchmark results: 100%.
  • Don’t let these claims distract from asking about the business value delivered by these systems.

    I wake up every day, right here, right in Cleveland, and it’s always snowing, and there’s nothing I can do about it. “Winter, slumbering in the open air, wears on its smiling face a dream… of spring.”

    ************************************************
    (1)IBM Power 780 (3.72 GHz) two-tier SAP SD Standard Application Benchmark result (SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application: 12 processors / 96 cores / 384 threads, POWER7+, 1536 GB memory, 57,024 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10, dialog resp.: 0.98s, line items/hour: 6,234,330, Dialog steps/hour: 18,703,000, SAPS: 311,720, DB time (dialog/ update): 0.009s / 0.014s, CPU utilization: 99%, Certification #2012033

    Oracle SPARC Server M5-32 SAP SD 2-tier result of 85,050 users, Average dialog response time: 0.80 seconds, Fully processed order line items per hour: 9,452,000,Dialog steps per hour: 28,356,000,SAPS: 472,600,Average database request time (dialog/update): 0.018 sec / 0.044 sec,CPU utilization of central server: 82%,Operating system, central server: Solaris 11,RDBMS: Oracle 11g,SAP Business Suite software: SAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0,32 processors / 192 cores / 1536 threads,SPARC M5, 3.60 GHz, 16 KB (D) and 16 KB (I) L1 cache and128 KB L2 cache per core, 48 MB L3 cache per processor,4096 GB main memory,Certification #2013009

    Oracle SPARC Server T5-8 SAP SD 2-tier result of 40,000 users,Average dialog response time: 0.86 seconds,Fully processed order line items per hour: 4,419,000,Dialog steps per hour: 13,257,000,SAPS: 220,950,Average database request time (dialog/update): 0.049 sec / 0.131 sec,CPU utilization of central server: 88%, Operating system, central server: Solaris 11,RDBMS: Oracle 11g,SAP Business Suite software: SAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0, 8 processors / 128 cores / 1024 threads,SPARC T5, 3.60 GHz, 16 KB (D) and 16 KB (I) L1 cache and 128 KB L2 cache per core, 8 MB L3 cache per processor,2048 GB main memory,Certification #2013008.

    (2) IBM Power 780 (2 chips, 8 cores, 32 threads) with IBM DB2 9.5 (1,200,011 tpmC, $.69/tpmC, configuration available 10/13/10); IBM Power 595 (5 GHz, 32 chips, 64 cores, 128 threads) with IBM DB2 9.5 (6,085,166 tpmC, $2.81/tpmC, configuration available 12/10/08); vs. Oracle SPARC T5-8 (8 chips, 128 cores, 1024 threads – 8,552,523 tpmC, $.55/tpmC, configuration available 9/25/13).

    (3) WebSphere Application Server V7 on IBM Power 780 and DB2 on IBM Power 750 Express, (64 core app server, 32 core db server), 16,646.34 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS vs. SPARC T5-8 server (SPARC T5-8 server base package, 8x SPARC T5 16-core processors, 128x16GB-1066 DIMMS, 2x600GB 10K RPM 2.5” SAS-2 HDD result of SPARC T5-8, 57,422.17 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS.

    (4) http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/performance-scalability/sparc-t5-2-specjbb2013-1925099.html

    Sources: http://www.spec.org, http://www.tpc.org, http://www.sap.com. Results current as of 3/26/13.

    TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).

    SAP, mySAP and other SAP product and service names mentioned herein as well as their respective
    logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries all
    over the world.

    SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

    The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

    technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Written by benchmarkingblog

    March 26, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    IBM’s Real Proof Points

    with 2 comments

    Let’s focus today on just a few of the awesome proof points that IBM announced yesterday.

    What’s clear is that these are not just wild claims backed by no data.

    These are real, externally-reviewed and published leadership results across important workloads that you can really use as one source of input in comparisons of infrastructure.

    • The new IBM Power 780 (POWER7+) with DB2 10 achieved the best 96-core two-tier SAP SD Standard Application Benchmark result. This result was 88% better per core than the HP DL980. (1)
    • The new IBM Power 780 (POWER7+) with DB2 10 achieved over 2x the performance per core of the Oracle SPARC T4-4 application server on the Java SPECjEnterprise benchmark. (2)
    • The new IBM DS8870 was just announced as the #1 SPC-2 storage benchmark result over HP, Hitachi and Oracle. (3)

    Not just pretty pictures and fluff, but the real stuff.

    ************************************************

    (1) IBM Power 780 (3.72 GHz) two-tier SAP SD Standard Application Benchmark result (SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application: 12 processors / 96 cores / 384 threads, POWER7+, 1536 GB memory, 57,024 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10, dialog resp.: 0.98s, line items/hour: 6,234,330, Dialog steps/hour: 18,703,000, SAPS: 311,720, DB time (dialog/ update): 0.009s / 0.014s, CPU utilization: 99%, Certification #2012033.vs. HP DL980 G7, Xeon, SQL Server 2008, 25,160 users, 8 processors/80 cores/160 threads, SAP enhancement package 4 for SAP ERP 6.0, Certification # 2011021. http://www.sap.com.
    (2) WebSphere Application Server V8.5 and DB2 10 on IBM Power 780 (POWER7+), (16 core app server, 16 core db server), 10,902 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS. vs. Oracle WebLogic Server 11g and Oracle Database 11g Release 2 with Oracle Real Application Clusters and Oracle Solaris running on a four-node SPARC T4-4 cluster, each system with four SPARC T4 3GHz processors, (128 core app server, 64 core db server), 40,104.86 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS. http://www.spec.org
    (3) Storage Performance Council, “SPC Benchmark 2™ Full Disclosure Report IBM Corporation, IBM System Storage DS8870,” October 2012. Source: http://www.storageperformance.org/results/benchmark_results_spc2.

    Results current as of 10/4/12.

    SAP and all SAP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and in several other countries. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

    SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).

    SPC Benchmark-1 and SPC Benchmark-2 are trademarks of the Storage Performance Council.

    The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

    technorati tags: , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Written by benchmarkingblog

    October 4, 2012 at 9:28 am

    Is Oracle Fleecing You?

    with one comment

    A couple of days ago, I bought a new fleece hiking jacket. In small, in black, on sale. With a hood. Made by a high end manufacturer whose name evokes a part of a mountain. The plush is luxuriously thick, the zipper hardware is incredible, and the tailoring just feels so right. I had tried on other jackets that just did not stack up. There was no comparison, apples and oranges, from different planets. And that reminded me once again of how some performance comparisons are made.

    This week, Oracle claimed x86 “world-record” performance with the Sun Fire X4800 M2 on industry standard Java middleware and transactional database benchmarks. They compared their results to results from IBM. Here’s what you need to know:

    For the Java SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark, Oracle needed more cores in both the application server and the database server. Oracle used over 4x the storage disks and over 7x the cache that was used in the IBM result. Oracle conveniently cites price/performance (which isn’t even a metric in this benchmark) for the application tier only. The picture would probably look very different if they included the important database tier (with all those costly Oracle licenses). Oracle compares their brand new result with an IBM result from over a year ago.(1) Maybe it’s time for a new . . .

    For the transactional TPC-C benchmark, when you analyze the comparison correctly, the IBM result is actually 19% better performance per core than the Oracle result. The IBM configuration has been available for months, the Oracle configuration is not even available. And the Oracle result is 1.5x more expensive.(2)

    When I got to the checkout line with my perfect fleece jacket, they told me that the store was having a special one day sale, another 20% off. I got myself superior performance and price/performance — and you can’t get much better than that.

    ************************************************

    (1) WebSphere Application Server V7 on IBM Power 780 and DB2 on IBM Power 750 Express, (64 core app server, 32 core db server), 16,646.34 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS vs. Oracle WebLogic Server 12c and Oracle Database 11g Release 2 with Oracle Linux running on a Sun Fire X4800 M2 server(5U) with eight Intel Xeon E7-8870 2.4 GHz processors, (80 cores, 8 chips, 10 cores/chip, 2 threads/core) 27,150.05 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS.
    (2) IBM System x3850 X5 (4 chips/40 cores/80 threads) – 3,014,684 tpmC, US$.59/tpmC, available 09/22/11 vs. Oracle Sun Fire X4800 M2 server (8 chips/80 cores/160 threads) – 5,055,888 tpmC, US$.89/tpmC, available 06/26/12.
    Sources: http://www.tpc.org, http://www.spec.org. Results current as of 3/30/12.
    TPC-C ,TPC-H, and TPC-E are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).
    SPEC, SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPECjEnterprise, SPECjvm, SPECvirt, SPECompM, SPECompL, SPECsfs, SPECpower, SPEC MPI and SPECpower_ssj are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC).
    The postings on this site solely reflect the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, strategies or opinions of IBM or IBM management.

    technorati tags: , , , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,

    ,,,,,,,,

    Written by benchmarkingblog

    March 30, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    %d bloggers like this: