solaris x86 versus linux on the same hardware - Solaris

This is a discussion on solaris x86 versus linux on the same hardware - Solaris ; KarlD schrieb: > Also keep in mind that US-II's are fully 64-bit processors > whereas Pentium's at that time were 32-bit processors, Right... > which means that US can shuffle and process twice > as much data per cycle. Well, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: solaris x86 versus linux on the same hardware

  1. Re: solaris x86 versus linux on the same hardware

    KarlD schrieb:

    > Also keep in mind that US-II's are fully 64-bit processors
    > whereas Pentium's at that time were 32-bit processors,


    Right...

    > which means that US can shuffle and process twice
    > as much data per cycle.


    Well, that depends on the task...

    > Most comparisons are for 32-bit
    > applications where this advantage does not come into play.
    > As soon as you need to address more than 2G, which we
    > needed to do frequently in many simulations, you were
    > pretty much dead with any Intel/Linux systems.


    Right. But for most desktop systems that simply wasn't a problem. Not at
    the time the USII was current, and even not today...

    Benjamin

  2. Re: solaris x86 versus linux on the same hardware

    Benjamin Gawert wrote:
    > Thommy M. schrieb:
    >
    >>>SPARC was never known for very high performance. The 500MHz UltraSPARC
    >>>II is around as fast as a P3 500/550MHz. Of course your Dell runs
    >>>circles around it not only because it has a much faster cpu but also
    >>>because it has much better I/O performance (i.e memory)...

    >>
    >>
    >> Benjamin, can you show us some figures supporting that?

    >
    > Sure, for example the figures on www.spec.org...
    >
    >> I belive a
    >> reasonably new
    >> SPARC can compete with a x86 in some cases.

    >
    > Well, a 500MHz UltraSPARC is hardly "reasonably new". In 2002 I got a
    > new Blade 1000 with two 900MHZ USIII processors. I was a bit
    > disappointed that my cheap Dell P4 1.5GHz ran circles around the Sun in
    > terms of fp performance. Especially when my Dell was around 1200EUR
    > (with 15" TFT) while the Bladed 1000 was over 20kEUR...
    >
    >> Regarding memory I think
    >> that's somewhere where the SPARC based systems really is better.

    >
    > Nope. The 500MHz USII uses slow EDORAM, and even the more modern 550MHz
    > USIIe with standard SDRAM is way behind every standard PC today which
    > uses fast DDR- or DDR2-SDRAM in dual channel configuration...
    >
    >> Also
    >> disk I/O is mostly
    >> an order of magnitude better as they run SCSI (or SAS) disks.

    >
    > Well, for destop use SCSI isn't really faster (just magnitudes more
    > expensive). That's why most high end desktop workstations today come
    > with fast SATA drives...


    No, they use IDE/sata because they're cheaper than SCSI. It's really that simple.

    >
    > Of course it's different with huge servers that have multiple PCI-X
    > busses and multiple processors. But even there Opteron and also Itanium
    > simply kick asses. And Sun probably already is aware of that, look at
    > the work they put in their Opteron products...
    >
    > Of course this all is quite technical. In the end it simply depends on
    > the application and how it's optimized for a certain platform...
    >
    > Benjamin


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2