> > I'm not sure that I follow your argument. The T1000's architecture
> > favors workloads that have many parallel tasks that involve data
> > throughput. The Xenon is going to have a better showing for straight
> > number-crunching work. If your webserver benchmark is trying to measure
> > the throughput for a few clients that perform simple tasks, then I can
> > understand why you might expect the Xenon to do better. However, if
> > you're trying to measure a workload that has many clients and measures
> > in ops/sec, the T1000 may well do better.
>
> This is exactly why I created this benchmark. On the T1000 it uses 32
> threads to encrypt the file in parallel - exactly the situation this
> machine is supposed to shine in. From the performance counters I can
> tell that the CPU is maxed, for a total of close to 8 billion
> operations per second, so that there is almost no internal stalling.
> My point was that even in this situation the UltraSPARC T1 lags
> considerably behind the quad-core Xeon.
Thanks for the clarification. The T1000 benchmarks that we advertise
focus on performance / watt. In other cases, clients push lots data
where computation isn't the dominating factor in the workload.
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t1000/benchmarks.jsp#4
I'm a little surprised that 32 threads are still slower than a 4-core
Xenon. The Xenon has less memory bandwidth than the T1000. A workload
where the 32 loading/storing dominates will probably perform better than
a workload where all 32 threads are performing computations.
-j
_______________________________________________
perf-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
