"Analysis of IBM's Hurricane x86 chipset"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob Stow
  • Start date Start date
There was a lot of interest about this in this newsgroup a while
ago, so here's a good read on the subject:

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT042405213553

(Found this at http://www.aceshardware.com/)
Click to expand...

If anyone is interested in some comparative benchmarks, there are SPEC
CINT_rate numbers up now for both this IBM x366 system using this
Hurricane chipset and Dell's Poweredge 6850 using Intel's new E8500
chipset.

Here's a few 4-processor systems for SPEC CINT2000 Rate:

Dell Poweredge 6850, 3.33GHz/8MB L3: 70.8 / 72.2 (base/peak)
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/cpu2000-20050321-03933.html

Dell Poweredge 6850, 3.66GHz/0MB L3: 53.4 / 56.4
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/cpu2000-20050321-03923.html

IBM x366, 3.66GHz/0MB L3: 67.2 / 67.5
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/cpu2000-20050324-03943.html


As you can see, using like CPUs results in the IBM chipset being MUCH
faster than the Intel one, however IBM's claim that their chipset
eliminates the need for large L3 caches on Xeons doesn't quite hold
water here. Sure, they do get pretty close to the large L3 cache Dell
systems, but don't quite match them despite having a clock speed
advantage.


Ohh, another quick (somewhat unrelated) benchmark for those that are
more interested TPC stuff:

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=105042002

First TPC-C benchmarks I've seen of a dual-core x86 processor, and
they're fairly impressive, especially on the $/tpmC scale. It manages
to top IBM's recent entry for their x366 server that was previously
the fastest 4-Processor (and by "processor" I mean "socket" here) x86
system. In fact, only IBM's Power5-based p570 server is faster with 4
"processors" (here IBM and AMD are defining/pricing "processor"
differently).

I still haven't seen any 4P servers using Intel's new E8500 chipset on
TPC, so we'll have to wait a bit longer to see how it compares to the
X3 chipset on that one.
 
As you can see, using like CPUs results in the IBM chipset being MUCH
faster than the Intel one, however IBM's claim that their chipset
eliminates the need for large L3 caches on Xeons doesn't quite hold
water here. Sure, they do get pretty close to the large L3 cache Dell
systems, but don't quite match them despite having a clock speed
advantage.
Click to expand...

The magic I could identify, reading _very_ quickly through the
extremetech article, was caching lines from another 4P node in memory
local to a node. That is to say, multiple node systems use main
memory to cache lines from other nodes. That's an advantage that
would not show up, of course, in a single-node 4P system.

RM
 
As you can see, using like CPUs results in the IBM chipset being
MUCH
The magic I could identify, reading _very_ quickly through the
extremetech article, was caching lines from another 4P node in memory
local to a node. That is to say, multiple node systems use main
memory to cache lines from other nodes. That's an advantage that
would not show up, of course, in a single-node 4P system.
Click to expand...

That is right. The X3 has a virtual L4 which caches data from remote
nodes (similar to HORUS' RDC, but using main memory). See my article
at RWT for more details.

Can I get a pointer to the Extreme tech article?

David
 
I'd happily supply a link to an extremetech article, if such a thing
existed. As it is there is only the realworldtech article, which I
misidentified. That is purely a function of the workings of my gray
matter. I can't even blame the failing on age, as I have been doing
such things for as long as I can remember. Sorry.

RM
 
[email protected] said:
I'd happily supply a link to an extremetech article, if such a thing
existed. As it is there is only the realworldtech article, which I
misidentified. That is purely a function of the workings of my gray
matter. I can't even blame the failing on age, as I have been doing
such things for as long as I can remember. Sorry.

RM
Click to expand...

Ah, well then, it looks like I'm all clear. You always have to worry
about those competitors : )

David
 
Back
Top