4D/35 vs. 4D/3xx

[tj]

In article <113 at tcela.COM>, tak at tcela.COM (Michael Takayama) writes:
> jeremy at perf2.asd.sgi.com responds:
> 
> >In article <112 at tcela.COM>, tak at tcela.COM (Michael Takayama) writes:
> >> Looking through the latest UNIX Review (Jan 91), I noted that the
4D/340VGX
> >> is SPECmarked at 19.5 while the new 4D/35 is SPECmarked at 23 (pgs. 75 and
> >> 110, respectively).
> >> 
> >> OK, all you folks at SGI in ASD and ESD, given the price
differential between
> >> the 4D/35 and 4D/3xx workstations, what is the *REAL* difference in
compute
> >> performance (not graphics - it's pretty much a given that GTX and VGX 
> >> performance far exceed TG performance) between these systems (esp. 4D/35S 
> >> and 4D/310S)? 
> >> 
> >
> >The 4D/340 has 4 processors.  The 19.5 mark is for a single processor only.
> >I believe that the throughput number is 67.something, or 4 @ 16.something.
> 
> No, no, no!  This is not what I (and many others) am interested in!  I guess
> that I have to be MORE SPECIFIC:
> 
> In the heavyweight division, we have the new 4D/310S Power Center IRIS
compute 
> server from ASD in a big box with lots of slots for peripherals and
heavy-duty
> power consumption.  
> 
> In the welterweight division, we have the new 4D/35S Personal IRIS compute
> server from ESD in a small box with few slots for peripherals and relatively
> low power consumption.
>   
> These are both single-processor systems (apparently the SAME processor).
> If the 19.5 SPECmark is indeed for the single-processor system (i.e.
4D/310S),
> then it is significantly lower than the SPECmark of 23 for the 4D/35S.  This 
> is remarkable given that a 4D/35S configuration is cheaper than an
equivalent 
> 4D/310S configuration.  
> 
> The REAL question is:
> 
> Is there any reason to purchase a 4D/310S vs. a 4D/35S from a compute 
> performance standpoint? 
> 
> Please leave out arguments of graphics, expandibility, upgrades, etc.
>  
> Incidentally, the price/performance ratio is just as bad for the 4D/320S 
> dual-processor systems.  With the 4D/340S (quad-processor), we might begin 
> to reach parity; with the 4D/380S (oct-processor), we might come up to
> parity plus maybe a bit more.  With quantity discounts, though, a farm of 
> 4D/35S's could be a better solution than ANY multi-processor IRIS in compute
> server configurations.  How do you justify 4D/3xxS compute servers vs.
4D/35S 
> compute servers given the price/performance discrepancies? 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Takayama                                        email:  tak at tce.com
> Technical Support Manager
> TDI America
> 
> "The 4D/35S or the 4D/310S?  Well, which keeps better time - Timex or Rolex?"
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The answer is simple for performance. If all you are looking at is single 
process performance with no concern for expandibility of VME, memory, etc
then the 4D35S is a better buy than a 310S. Many of our customers do in fact
create compute farms of many 4D35S. It is entirely dependent on your 
application as to wether 8 4D35S or 1 4D380 is a better buy. Remember that 
with 8 4D35S you have to buy 8 times as much memory (on the 380S it's shared).
You also have the network overhead of crossmounting disks with NFS (once
again on the 380S they are shared). The 380S is also capable of running jobs
in parallel mode to speed up a single process, not just more throughput.

Tom Jermoluk
ASD/SGI