You’re misreading how competitive laptop and above still is and assuming it’s where the bread is buttered. TPC-H (1TB) – SPARC T4-4 beats HP DL980-8 by 2.3x perf/core , Oh, we more than agree on what Oracle is doing and how. Part of that time is in what the system delivers (throughput, response times, scalability, etc), and part of that time is how much time it took you to get system up and running (integration/installation/testing/validation/etc) and stay running (uptime, availability, lifecycle, upgrades/patches/etc), in production of course. As some one in an earlier post said, the fact that T4/T5 are even in discussions is a great sign. Remember that Oracle acquired Sun just 3 years ago and takes time to turn around a big ship. Not Really.. There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between “having” and “selling”.”. Regardless of Oracle’s marketing statements on the subject. All that aside, this post is about SPARC T5 so I’ll look for more comments regarding that. Its currently ranked #9 best price/performance and when you look at #1-#9, they come no where near the total throughput. You see: Rick was here too, talking to us. Well that’s the whole point about the “new” Oracle. To that end, the SPARC T5 server had 128 cores, the Intel Xeon E7-8870 server had 80 cores and the Intel Xeon E5-2690 server had 16 cores. So, I’d recommend doing per core calcs based on one of the many application/database based benchmarks like TPC-C, TPC-H, SAP or one of the SPECj benchmarks which will highlight more realistic differences. Eventually it will blow back to them unless their mobile business takes hold. Honestly I didn’t think Oracle had the engineers, tools and skill to close what was really a huge gap so quickly. y��R�BBރ�jh That said, the response time of transactions on a multi-processing computer have little bearing on transaction throughput. Those are not instruction costs but memory costs. It so happens that all three of the processors spoken of in Figure 1 have been assessed a core factor of .5 by Oracle. Alex, hެZ�n$�ͧ���U��� A�»�=(��,D+ ڱ�}�!�imFl4~9lօ�S��j�h� �DgB6����D5�_W����W0.����A�M�x��L�&i6IL�̤&;5ə-ɛ�����Iш����̇}��@L�����dA[�� We are awaiting Ivy Bridge-EX (aka E7 V2). Finally, the Intel 8-socket Xeon E7 result outperformed SPARC T5 by 76%. Times have changed. A well architected system virtualized on Intel Xeon’s will outperform the T5 system any day of the week in any number of metrics that matter, including lower TCO, acquisition cost, operations and even performance in some cases. Those are audited/published results. I refuse to be such for as long as I don’t get a maintenance discount on my existing licenses. As you speak of all of these “features” in the database be aware of who is funding the development of these features. Another point is that you are comparing a Xeon E5-Series CPU which can only scale to 2-CPUs (16-cores Max) to the SPARC T5 which scales all the way up to 8-CPU’s (128-cores). went the way of the dodo. The SPARC T5-8 server beat the 8 processor HP DL980 G7 with Intel Xeon E7-4870 processors by 1.7x on the SPECint_rate2006 benchmark and 2.1x on the SPECfp_rate2006 benchmark. Alternatively, you could just ignore what I write because unless I provide citations of my data I am only sharing my opinion as specifically called out in my blog disclaimer. That is somewhat fast. The choice is yours. Check here for restocks at Amazon, Walmart, GameStop and Target, Amazon Black Friday 2020 deals: $100 Amazfit GTS, $130 Fitbit Versa 2, $65 Echo Show 8, more, Discuss: Oracle SPARC T5 3.6 GHz processor board. SPARC will be a niche, a very expensive niche and Oracle knows that. Or Apple, for that matter. ��ǚ�M}���}�^m��]=u|�����zu����0����h�G�}�ܶ_�7�����ӓdž�L��-�����i�ǒLK:�`,��c��O�l What that tells me is that there is an abyssal separation between the actual real market and what the Oracle hardware folks think it is. By the way, you keep talking about maintenance costs. The laptop/desktop sandy bridge CPU core/pipeline is just tweaked to make Xeon E5, its not a redesign. Intel’s operational revenue in this market is going to continue to shrink and they’re going to need to re-focus on ultra low power designs (cell phones, tablets) that greatly optimize power usage often at the cost of core performance. http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp?resulttype=noncluster, @Phil_Oracle : I discredit pricing in TPC-C. A SPARC T5 processor running Oracle Solaris 11.1 is 2.7 times faster executing AES-CFB 256-bit key encryption (in cache) than the Intel E5-2697 v2 processor (with AES-NI) running Oracle Linux 6.3. Why do you suppose Oracle’s benchmark team left ASM out of the SPARC T5 TPC-C ? First, I’d like to point out how much attention Oracle is getting with its latest SPARC T5, SPARC M5 and even SPARC M10 announcements-Why?? Yeah, Technology companies *depend* on R&D to advance, and without revenue, but more importantly, margin and profit, its not possible, so its Oracles success as a company that’s feeding back into R&D, which I believe ultimately benefits the customer with better, more competitive products. I’ve had a series of SPARC system processor boards fail in my experience and just because it’s expensive doesn’t mean it’s necessarily good. so T5 has 28.5 per core and Xeon 44.5 per core — that’s a huge difference. Well, the way I look at it, is if you’re doing performance/core calculations its probably because you’re analyzing licensing costs and therefore you should probably be looking at a benchmark that actually runs a similar type workload and clearly SPECint2006rate is NOT- Its pretty much a RAW CPU benchmark that doesn’t take anything else about the CPU nor the rest of the “stack” into consideration like system I/O, networking, OS, DB, encryption, etc.