Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!lucy.swin.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au!news.apana.org.au!cantor.edge.net.au!news.teragen.com.au!news.access.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!newton!physmsa From: physmsa@phys.canterbury.ac.nz (Mr M S Aitchison) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.sys.sun.misc Subject: Re: Sparc vs. x86 speed (was Re: Linux vs BSD) Date: 29 Jan 1997 00:55:04 GMT Organization: Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Canterbury. Lines: 61 Distribution: world Message-ID: <5cm758$d80$1@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c58n9$hcb@innocence.interface-business.de> <32E66DE1.7E36AB48@samart.co.th> <5c8b0o$313$1@capsicum.wsrcc.com> <mumfordE4H6FI.Cr1@netcom.com> <32E75738.64D34A1F@tiac.net> <5cj8hj$1cm$1@capsicum.wsrcc.com> <32EDD877.52DB@Informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: newton.phys.canterbury.ac.nz Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:66492 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5778 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2091 comp.sys.sun.misc:28126 In article <32EDD877.52DB@Informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE>, Michael Froehlich <mfr@Informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE> writes: > Do you have a source for the $20,000 claim from above? > *List* prices for the Ultra 1 starts at $8,000 (140MHz, 17", > 64MB, 2GB), street prices are lower... Comparing systems is tough. Sun price low-end unexpandable boxes very low due to market pressures (SGI etc do the same)... it is a big jump up to something with a slightly higher clock speed and capable of taking more RAM, CPUs, etc. This happens to a small extent in the PC market (a dual PPro motherboard is much more expensive, but the percentage over the whole machine is nothing compared with the Sparc situation. What does cost megabucks in the PC world is a really good motherboard with better cache, etc. Given that memory bandwidth is critical in a 200MHz computer coupled to 16MHz RAM you need something like lots of cache and/or SDRAM (etc) to retain speed in large real-world jobs as opposed to benchmark tests. The UltraSPARC can take more cache than the PPro, but it is one-way (as far as I recall), compared with PPros's two-way L2 cache and even better 4-way cache on SuperSparcs (SuperSparcs were better than hyperSPARCs and even sometimes UltraSPARCs if you run large progarms (e.g. large matrices). Floating point performance went up tremendously with both the UltraSPARC and the PPro (compared with their respective predecessors), but both are unimpressive compared with what has been available on IBM, SGI, HP and DEC systems of a few years. In fact the PowerPC 604e and soon the 704 are much much faster (yet in the PPro price range), while the PowerIIsc (a bit more expensive then a medium-sized Ultra) leaves everything else for dead. Assuming we're talking about speed at certain types of CPU-intensive (especially floating point) applications. Often the best overall system speed is not just a matter of the raw CPU speed but such things as the quality of compiler, the availability of two CPUs (subjectively, our 2-CPU 55MHz SuperSparc outperforms many other systems because there is a high change one of the CPUs will be available when you need it). And, if you can afford several computers, making one computer the "file server" and another the "print server", etc can avoid expensive CPU cycles being stolen from good compute servers that are easily (and reliably) put on simpler systems. With Intel boxes there is a much higher chance you can afford several computers to fill the system's needs, which can provide backup facilities (e.g. the file server can take over the print server's job at a pinch). This might even mean you can get a good machine (dual 200MHz PPRo or a modern PowerPC or a cheap Alpha) to take care of the compute grunt because it now need not have the extra peripherals that push the price up. I'd love to test a 300MHz ultra sparc; I have no idea whether the speed scales well with the clock, but I know some things run well on a 200MHz Ultra (compared with a PPro) and some things don't. SPARCs in general are good at context switching, and the availability of registers can help compilers produce efficient code. I get the feeling they are bad value, though. That's a generalisation of course. If you *must* have the speed then you must be prepeared to pay more at the high PPro end and above. I find the price more than doubles when going to "reasonable" (i.e. a bit above bottom of the line) SPARC/SGI/whatever systems compared with the top-end PPro systems for what some people find is worse performance. You have to try *real* programs. Sorry I missed the original post - there might have been more details to go on. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Aitchison, Physics & Astronomy \_ Phone : +64 3 3642-947 a.h. 3371-225 University of Canterbury, </ Fax : +64 3 3642-469 or 3642-999 Christchurch, New Zealand. /) E-mail: phys169@csc.canterbury.ac.nz #include <disclaimer.std> (/' "I am Daffy Duck of Borg. Resistance is dithpicable!" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------