Re: Intel Compared to Sun M-Series
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 16:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <462324.93004.qm_at_web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
I suppose I should have chosen my words more carefully - the reason I actually asked this question is because a partner provided us with some sizing result for an Oracle ebs deployment. There were 2 sizings one on Intel the other on spare vii7+, apparently twice the number of sun sparc cores are required compared to Intel - this was the basis for my question. I get what you're saying that performance is just not about cpu power. But all things equal (if that's possible), the Intel solution appears to also be a cheaper option given the core factors are also the same? The confusing thing is this sizing appears to simply say the Intel core is better than the sparc one?
Thanks......Matt
On Tue, 03 May 2011 23:44 BST Greg Rahn wrote:
>More performant doing what operation? This is kind of a trick
>question because core performance isn't necessarily equivalent to
>system performance (computers are more than cores...) and one core can
>be faster at one thing vs another.
>Which Westmere? EP or EX?
>Which SPARC? SPARC64 VII+?
>
>I'd probably wager a Westmere-EP core is ~2-3x more powerful than a
>SPARC64 VII+ core if that is what you are after, but not sure what
>that tells you as you can only put 2 Westmere-EP chips (12 cores) in a
>system but you can put 64 SPARC64 VII+ chips (256 cores) in a system.
>Pretty soon, if not already, Westmere-EX (Xeon E7) will be out and
>that is 10 cores per chip up to 8 chips per system (80 cores).
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue May 03 2011 - 18:29:13 CDT