Comp P8 Vs X86 2j4y1v
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report r6l17
Overview 4q3b3c
& View Comp P8 Vs X86 as PDF for free.
More details 26j3b
- Words: 3,796
- Pages: 23
Competitive Comparisons POWER8 versus Intel x86
Contents • x86 Vendor Claims • IBM Response
2
x86 Vendor Claims – how to respond X86 Vendor Sales Tactics x86 systems have leadership performance versus POWER8 systems
IBM Response / Reality x86 Vendors compare 4-socket 60 core x86 servers to the Power S824 2 socket 24 core class boxes, to claim better system performance. This is SYSTEM performance and not core performance, which translates to expensive SW licensing costs. The Scale Out POWER8 systems are scale out solutions and should credibly be compared to 2-socket x86 E5-26xx class servers, with laser focus on per core performance, as that is where the software licensing charges accumulate. POWER8 cores are 2x the performance over x86 cores across a wide range of benchmarks. PowerVM enables higher sustained utilization on Power Systems and even fewer cores, which we guarantee on POWER8 SCO Systems. See more detail here.
x86 Systems have better price performance versus POWER8 systems
Power systems are actually TCA price-performance advantaged versus x86 systems, particularly when we drive the system utilization levels up with PowerVM enabling consolidation. Linux on Power versus Linux on X86 comparisons should be with the 822L and 812L. The 824L contains GPUs (and cost) for specific functionality that is not contained in standard x86 configurations. If database or ISV software costs are included the Power Scale-Out systems can show even more dramatic savings over x86 systems. See more detail here.
x86 systems have equal RAS to IBM Power systems
IBM Power systems have a long history of unmatched Enterprise-class RAS capabilities. X86 systems require expensive cluster software (like RAC) to achieve even minimal RAS. See more detail here.
IBM technology is 3 years behind Intel technology in silicon manufacturing
IBM and Intel are delivering 22nm technology. What is important is that IBM core performance improves every generation and Intel performance degrades core to core.
Oracle SW is cheaper on x86 than on Power due to the 0.5 multiplier on x86 versus 1.0 on the Power Solution.
PowerVM is approved for sub-capacity licensing, allowing only the cores that are being utilized by the Oracle DB to require licenses; with x86/VMWare solutions, the customer must license every core for both DB and RAC from the time of purchase. See more detail here.
See more detail here.
3
Return to x86 Tactics
POWER8 processor is Purpose Built – resulting in performance over Intel Xeon Sandy Bridge EP E5-26xx
Ivy Bridge EP E5-26xx v2
Haswell EP E5-26xx v3
Ivy Bridge EX E7-88xx v2
1.7-3.7GHz
1.7-3.7GHz
1.9-3.4 GHz
3.1-4.4 GHz
3.0-4.15 GHz
1,2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2, 4
1, 2, 4, 8
Cores per socket
8
12
18
15
8
12
Max Threads / sock
16
24
36
30
32
96
Max L1 Cache
32KB
32KB*
32KB*
32KB*
32KB
64KB
Max L2 Cache
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
512 KB
Max L3 Cache
20 MB
30 MB
45 MB
37.5 MB
80 MB
96 MB
Max L4 Cache
0
0
0
0
0
128 MB
31.4-51.2 GB/s
42.6-59.7 GB/s
51.2-68.3 GB/s
68-85** GB/s
100 – 180 GB/sec
230 - 410 GB/sec
Clock rates SMT options
Memory Bandwidth
1.8–3.6GHz
* Intel calls this Hyper-Threading Technology (No HT and with HT)
POWER 7+
POWER8
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims - Performance x86 CLAIM: • x86 systems have leadership performance versus POWER8 systems IBM RESPONSE: • x86 Vendors compare 4-socket 60 core x86 servers to the Power S824 2 socket 24 core class boxes, to claim better system performance. This is SYSTEM performance and not core performance, which translates to expensive SW licensing costs. The Scale Out POWER8 systems are scale out solutions and should credibly be compared to 2-socket x86 E5-26xx class servers, with laser focus on per core performance, as that is where the software licensing charges accumulate. • POWER8 cores are 2x the performance over x86 cores across a wide range of benchmarks. • PowerVM enables higher sustained utilization on Power Systems and even fewer cores, which we guarantee on POWER8 SCO Systems.
Return to x86 Tactics
Performance comparison – POWER8 vs. x86 E5 IBM POWER8 core and system performance is leadership versus the x86 Xeon E5-2699 v3 •
Published Benchmarks – ALL data is PUBLISHED
x86 “Haswell”
IBM POWER S824
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3 (except where noted)
POWER8 @ 3.5 GHz
36
24
SAP 2-Tier
16500
21212
1.9
SPECint_rate2006
1400
1750
1.8
SPECfp_rate2006
942
1370
2.1
195119
361293
2.7
11260
22543
2.0
1017639
1090909
2.1
(24-core E5-2697 v2)
(12-core)
10000
50000
(16-core E5-2690)
(6-core)
# Cores
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS) SPECjEnterprise2010 Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Siebel CRM Release 8.1.1.4 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
(24-core E5-2697 v2)
13.3
IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark s, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014 Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark s, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
** Do not leave behind with client, presentation use only**
Core Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs. x86 IBM POWER8 core performance is up to 9.0x the best x86 Xeon E5 performance (typical customer utilization) • • •
Industry Standard Benchmarks – All Intel performance numbers are IBM internal projections and publishes where available IBM S824 data is published/projected
x86 E5
IBM Power S824
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3
Power 8 @ 3.5 GHz
P8 Util: 100% x86 Util: 100%
P8 Util: 65% x86 Util: 40%
P8 Util: 65% x86 Util: 20%
36
24
Benchmark Utilization
Utilization with virtualized x86
Utilization without virtualized x86
OLTP
2400
3585
2.2
3.6
7.2
ERP SAP 2-Tier
16500
21212
1.9
3.2
6.3
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS)
195119
361293
2.7
4.5
9.0
SPECint_rate
1430
1750
1.8
2.9
5.9
SPECfp_rate
965
1370
2.1
3.4
6.8
16500
22543
2.0
3.3
6.5
# Cores
SPECjEnterprise2010 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark s, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014 Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark s, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ LEGEND: SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ Published Projected Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs x86 Typical deceptive x86 positioning … against System Power
Power 8
x86
S824
4s x86
24
60
SpecINT 2006 Rate
1750
2370
x86 35% faster
SpecFP 2006 Rate
1370
1740
x86 27% faster
SPEC jbb2013 max JOPS
361,293
199,752
Power 80% faster
SAP S&D 2 tier (s)
21,212
25,000
x86 18% better
Power 8
x86
Comparison
System
S824
2s x86
# Cores
24
36
SpecINT 2006 Rate
1750
1400
Power 25% faster
SpecFP 2006 Rate
1370
942
Power 27% faster
SPEC jbb2013 max JOPS
361,293
190,674
Power 89% faster
SAP S&D 2 tier (s)
21,212
16,000
Power 33% faster
# Cores
True Scale Out Comparison
Comparison
}
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Comparing 4socket x86 E7 (60 cores) vs S824 POWER8 (24 cores)
POWER8 is the Performance leader in the Scale Out Space with 2/3 of the cores with up to 89% better at the system level performance and up to 2.7x better per core performance
(1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark s, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014 (2) IBM System x3850 X6 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors/ 60 cores/ 120 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 4890 v2; 2.80 GHz, 1024 GB memory; 25,000 SD benchmark s, running Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition and DB2 10; Certification # 2014004. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark . (3) IBM System x 3650 M5, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,000 SD benchmark s, running Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition and DB2 10; Certification # 2014030. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. (4) SPECjbb2013 results are valid as of 10/15/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 15, 2014. (5) SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 10/2/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 6, 2014.
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – Price-Performance x86 CLAIM: • x86 systems have leadership price-performance versus POWER8 systems IBM RESPONSE: • Power systems are actually TCA price-performance advantaged versus x86 systems, particularly when we drive the system utilization levels up with PowerVM enabling consolidation. • Linux on Power versus Linux on X86 comparisons should be with the 822L and 812L. The 824L contains GPUs (and cost) for specific functionality that is not contained in standard x86 configurations. • If database or ISV software costs are included the Power Scale-Out systems can show even more dramatic savings over x86 systems.
Return to x86 Tactics
Scale-Out Price Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs x86 …
This price is an S824L which has 2 GPUs – not in the Intel box!!!! Power 8
X86 2-socket
Advantage
SpecFP 2006 Rate
1130
916
Power 23% faster
System HW Price
$37,305
$21,200
x86 43% better
33 ppf
24 ppf
x86 28% better
Price/Performance
A more comparable model would be the S822L and using SPECfp_rate as opposed to SPECfp_base Power 8 – S822L
X86 2-socket
Advantage
SpecFP 2006 Rate
1252
942
Power 33% faster
System HW Price
$26,005
$21,200
x86 19% better
21 ppf
23 ppf
Power 10% better
Price/Performance
(1) (2)
This is SPECfp_rate2006 base – NOTE: the performance compares were done with SPECfp_rate2006
POWER8 has BETTER PricePerformance when a valid comparison is made.
SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 10/2/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 6, 2014. Pricing is based on Lenovo claims and IBM econfig
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims - RAS x86 CLAIM: • x86 systems have equal RAS to IBM Power systems
IBM RESPONSE: • IBM Power systems have a long history of unmatched Enterprise-class RAS capabilities. X86 systems require expensive cluster software (like RAC) to achieve even minimal RAS.
….. …. …..
Return to x86 Tactics
Power RAS Involves More Than Just the Processor
IBM develops, tests, integrates the entire stack for RAS ►
I/O drawers / memory management unit
►
Processors and all chips in CEC
►
Hypervisor (PowerVM) and VIOS
►
Device drivers, PCI adapters
►
Operating system (AIX, System i, Linux)
►
Middleware and Clustering software
Power Stack - Integrated RAS
Intel Processor RAS
IBM Middleware
What is Missing?
PowerHA AIX, IBM i, Linux
PowerVM Firmware Memory
12
Drivers
POWER U
I/O Drawer
RAS
LPARs / Workloads
Firmware
Memory
x86 U
This document is for IBM and IBM Business Partner use only. It is not intended for client distribution
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – Technology x86 CLAIM: • IBM technology is 3 years behind Intel technology in silicon manufacturing
IBM RESPONSE: • IBM and Intel are delivering 22nm technology. What is important is that IBM core performance improves every generation and Intel performance degrades core to core.
Return to x86 Tactics
POWER8 processor is Purpose Built – resulting in performance over Intel Xeon Sandy Bridge EP E5-26xx
Ivy Bridge EP E5-26xx v2
Haswell EP E5-26xx v3
Ivy Bridge EX E7-88xx v2
1.7-3.7GHz
1.7-3.7GHz
1.9-3.4 GHz
3.1-4.4 GHz
3.0-4.15 GHz
1,2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2, 4
1, 2, 4, 8
Cores per socket
8
12
18
15
8
12
Max Threads / sock
16
24
36
30
32
96
Max L1 Cache
32KB
32KB*
32KB*
32KB*
32KB
64KB
Max L2 Cache
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
512 KB
Max L3 Cache
20 MB
30 MB
45 MB
37.5 MB
80 MB
96 MB
Max L4 Cache
0
0
0
0
0
128 MB
31.4-51.2 GB/s
42.6-59.7 GB/s
51.2-68.3 GB/s
68-85** GB/s
100 – 180 GB/sec
230 - 410 GB/sec
Clock rates SMT options
Memory Bandwidth
1.8–3.6GHz
* Intel calls this Hyper-Threading Technology (No HT and with HT)
POWER 7+
POWER8
Return to x86 Tactics
POWER8 moves forwards while Xeon moves backwards IBM POWER systems continue to deliver improved system performance and more value per SW $ spent •
Infrastructure Software Price-performance has been REDUCED on Intel servers –
Software Licensing has increased by 1.5x –
3.09 performance gain came from new version of Java and increased memory (4x more)
Assumes flat system pricing 12 cores versus 8 cores OR 18 versus 12
Performance has not increased proportionally to the chip core count resulting in higher software costs –
x86 publishes on 2-socket systems
x86 “Sandy Bridge”
x86 “Ivy Bridge”
x86 “Haswell”
2-socket
2-socket
2-socket
E5-2690
E5-2697v2
E5-2699v3
16
24
ERP SAP 2-Tier
7960
SPECint_rate
System Performance Ratio
POWER7+
POWER8
System Performance Ratio
IVB to HAS 1.50
2-socket POWER7+
2-socket POWER8
POWER7+ to POWER8
36
SNB to IVB 1.50
16
24
1.50
10253
16500
1.29
1.61
10000
21212
2.12
693
1020
1400
1.47
1.37
884
1750
1.98
SPECfp_rate
510
734
942
1.44
1.28
602
1370
2.28
SPECjbb2013
N/A
63079
195119
-
3.09
NA
361293
-
# Cores
SPECjEnterprise201 8310 11260 N/A 1.35 13161 22543 1.71 IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark s, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: 0 1) http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
POWER8 is 89% better at the system level and 2.7x the core performance
Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark s, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – SW Costs are lower on x86 x86 CLAIM: • Oracle SW is cheaper on x86 than on Power due to the 0.5 multiplier on x86 versus 1.0 on the Power Solution.
IBM RESPONSE: • PowerVM is approved for sub-capacity licensing, allowing only the cores that are being utilized by the Oracle DB to require licenses; with x86/VMWare solutions, the customer must license every core for both DB and RAC from the time of purchase. • Use the QuickCost TCA/TCO Tool (see IBM and PW links in the notes section) to demonstrate how we save clients real money in TCA and TCO around software licenses and
Oracle Certification For VMware and KVM • • • •
Running Oracle in a VMware ESX cluster you must license ALL of the cores in the cluster Oracle DOES NOT recognise VMware as "hard partitioning" http://blogs.gartner.com/chris-wolf/2010/11/10/oracle-broadens-x86-virtualisation--but-work-remains/ Running Oracle in a VMware ESX cluster is not certified. If is required for unknown problems then you must recreate the problem without VMware installed view Oracle Metalink document 249212.1
• Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 integrates Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) and ships Xen as the default hypervisor, so they are ed by Oracle under the Oracle Linux program. However, Oracle does not Oracle products on RHEL's KVM/Xen. • http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf
Executive Power Summary vs Intel Claims: Power Systems Deliver a Lower TCA and TCO Compared against Linux on Intel •Power Delivers – Better Investment Protection for both HW and SW versus Intel degrading in performance with new products and additional cores (Haswell) – Better RAS features at a lower Cost vs Intel which requires up to 4.5x more downtime – Better Performance at Higher System Utilization/Performance Levels Which we Guarantee – POWER8 65% Sustained Utilization Guarantee with No Degradation in Performance while Intel averages 20-40%
– Better Scalability for intended and unexpected growth – buy what you need, when you need it versus Intel which requires additional system purchases for growth such as storage – Better Security Don’t waste resources (time and money) patching endless systems
– And cost savings with POWER IS the icing on the cake
18
BACKUP
P8 Scale Out Sales Strategy - Memory Fact: P8 Centaur memory is more expensive than standard x86 memory Fact: Centaur memory is what give p8 servers 4x better memory performance * Memory and I/O advantages translate into 2 – 10x better server performance
• Position as Scale Out Servers – Box to box comparison with minimal memory comparable to x86 – Box to box comparison at 128, 256, 1,024GB translates to Power being more expensive than x86. Fact: With higher performance for Power, fewer servers and licenses are needed. Meaning lower TCA and TCO Translation: In actual workloads, Power is less expensive when more than 1 server is required. Power price is less with Server consolidation due to higher performance Don’t get caught up in Box to Box comparisons with x86.
Run a Proof of Concept (PoC) to prove the value of Power 20
© 2014 IBM Corporation
P8 Scale Out Sales Strategy - Storage Fact: P8 2U servers have max of 12 x 2.5” 2TB drives/Server = 24TB Fact: x86 2U servers can have 16 or more 2.5” 2TB drives/Server = 32TB
• Position as Scale Out Servers – Box to box comparison of storage favors x86 Fact: With Power, if more storage is needed, a storage drawer can be added. Fact: With x86 servers, if more storage is needed, a new server is required which means more cores (more license cost) Translation: In actual Big Data environments, Terabytes up to Petabytes of data are in use. Adding storage drawers is more cost effective than adding additional servers to add storage.
Don’t get caught up in Box to Box comparisons with x86.
Run a Proof of Concept (PoC) to prove the value of Power 21
© 2014 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Deliver Over TWICE the Throughput Compared to Ivy Bridge-EP at 47% Lower Cost Web Application Power S824 Linux
WAS WAS
WAS WAS
…..
RHEL RHEL RHEL RHEL
WAS WAS
RHEL RHEL
WAS WAS
4 VMs
182,672
Interactions per second
2.1x Faster
RHEL RHEL
$3.11
PowerVM
DB2
2S/24 Core POWER8 (3.525 GHz)
per UI per sec
WebSphere on platform Database off platform
Both Servers configured to achieve maximum throughput
Online Banking Workload v3.6
47%
Lower cost per UI per sec
Ivy Bridge EP Competitor WAS WAS
WAS WAS
RHEL RHEL RHEL RHEL
…..
WAS WAS
WAS WAS
6 VMs
RHEL RHEL RHEL RHEL
Competitive Hypervisor
DB2
85,939
Interactions per second
$5.84
per UI per sec
WebSphere on platform Database off platform
2S/24 Core Ivy Bridge-EP (2.7 GHz) This is an IBM internal study designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload usage in the marketplace. It consists of a POWER8 S824 with 24 cores, 3.52 GHz, 512GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1 compared to an Ivy Bridge EP 24 cores 2.7 GHz, 256 GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1. The results were obtained under laboratory conditions, and not in an actual customer environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such, customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and other systems variations or testing conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment. Prices, where applicable, are
based on published US list prices for both IBM and competitor, and the Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA) includes the list HW and SW prices and 3 years of service & which is then divided by the number of transactions to get $ per interaction per second. 22 © 2014 IBM Corporation
Bon-Ton boosts e-commerce throughput by 2.5x and improves the customer experience while controlling costs
2.5x throughput for more orders per minute
No increase in licensing costs
50% fewer servers required compared with x86 systems
• Bon-Ton needed to expand capacity of its ecommerce environment to handle seasonal demand spikes and significant ongoing customer growth • Migrated WebSphere Commerce from an x86 environment to Linux on Power Systems and PowerVM virtualization • Substantially enhanced throughput without increasing per-core software licensing costs.
Contents • x86 Vendor Claims • IBM Response
2
x86 Vendor Claims – how to respond X86 Vendor Sales Tactics x86 systems have leadership performance versus POWER8 systems
IBM Response / Reality x86 Vendors compare 4-socket 60 core x86 servers to the Power S824 2 socket 24 core class boxes, to claim better system performance. This is SYSTEM performance and not core performance, which translates to expensive SW licensing costs. The Scale Out POWER8 systems are scale out solutions and should credibly be compared to 2-socket x86 E5-26xx class servers, with laser focus on per core performance, as that is where the software licensing charges accumulate. POWER8 cores are 2x the performance over x86 cores across a wide range of benchmarks. PowerVM enables higher sustained utilization on Power Systems and even fewer cores, which we guarantee on POWER8 SCO Systems. See more detail here.
x86 Systems have better price performance versus POWER8 systems
Power systems are actually TCA price-performance advantaged versus x86 systems, particularly when we drive the system utilization levels up with PowerVM enabling consolidation. Linux on Power versus Linux on X86 comparisons should be with the 822L and 812L. The 824L contains GPUs (and cost) for specific functionality that is not contained in standard x86 configurations. If database or ISV software costs are included the Power Scale-Out systems can show even more dramatic savings over x86 systems. See more detail here.
x86 systems have equal RAS to IBM Power systems
IBM Power systems have a long history of unmatched Enterprise-class RAS capabilities. X86 systems require expensive cluster software (like RAC) to achieve even minimal RAS. See more detail here.
IBM technology is 3 years behind Intel technology in silicon manufacturing
IBM and Intel are delivering 22nm technology. What is important is that IBM core performance improves every generation and Intel performance degrades core to core.
Oracle SW is cheaper on x86 than on Power due to the 0.5 multiplier on x86 versus 1.0 on the Power Solution.
PowerVM is approved for sub-capacity licensing, allowing only the cores that are being utilized by the Oracle DB to require licenses; with x86/VMWare solutions, the customer must license every core for both DB and RAC from the time of purchase. See more detail here.
See more detail here.
3
Return to x86 Tactics
POWER8 processor is Purpose Built – resulting in performance over Intel Xeon Sandy Bridge EP E5-26xx
Ivy Bridge EP E5-26xx v2
Haswell EP E5-26xx v3
Ivy Bridge EX E7-88xx v2
1.7-3.7GHz
1.7-3.7GHz
1.9-3.4 GHz
3.1-4.4 GHz
3.0-4.15 GHz
1,2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2, 4
1, 2, 4, 8
Cores per socket
8
12
18
15
8
12
Max Threads / sock
16
24
36
30
32
96
Max L1 Cache
32KB
32KB*
32KB*
32KB*
32KB
64KB
Max L2 Cache
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
512 KB
Max L3 Cache
20 MB
30 MB
45 MB
37.5 MB
80 MB
96 MB
Max L4 Cache
0
0
0
0
0
128 MB
31.4-51.2 GB/s
42.6-59.7 GB/s
51.2-68.3 GB/s
68-85** GB/s
100 – 180 GB/sec
230 - 410 GB/sec
Clock rates SMT options
Memory Bandwidth
1.8–3.6GHz
* Intel calls this Hyper-Threading Technology (No HT and with HT)
POWER 7+
POWER8
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims - Performance x86 CLAIM: • x86 systems have leadership performance versus POWER8 systems IBM RESPONSE: • x86 Vendors compare 4-socket 60 core x86 servers to the Power S824 2 socket 24 core class boxes, to claim better system performance. This is SYSTEM performance and not core performance, which translates to expensive SW licensing costs. The Scale Out POWER8 systems are scale out solutions and should credibly be compared to 2-socket x86 E5-26xx class servers, with laser focus on per core performance, as that is where the software licensing charges accumulate. • POWER8 cores are 2x the performance over x86 cores across a wide range of benchmarks. • PowerVM enables higher sustained utilization on Power Systems and even fewer cores, which we guarantee on POWER8 SCO Systems.
Return to x86 Tactics
Performance comparison – POWER8 vs. x86 E5 IBM POWER8 core and system performance is leadership versus the x86 Xeon E5-2699 v3 •
Published Benchmarks – ALL data is PUBLISHED
x86 “Haswell”
IBM POWER S824
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3 (except where noted)
POWER8 @ 3.5 GHz
36
24
SAP 2-Tier
16500
21212
1.9
SPECint_rate2006
1400
1750
1.8
SPECfp_rate2006
942
1370
2.1
195119
361293
2.7
11260
22543
2.0
1017639
1090909
2.1
(24-core E5-2697 v2)
(12-core)
10000
50000
(16-core E5-2690)
(6-core)
# Cores
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS) SPECjEnterprise2010 Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Siebel CRM Release 8.1.1.4 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
(24-core E5-2697 v2)
13.3
IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark s, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014 Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark s, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
** Do not leave behind with client, presentation use only**
Core Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs. x86 IBM POWER8 core performance is up to 9.0x the best x86 Xeon E5 performance (typical customer utilization) • • •
Industry Standard Benchmarks – All Intel performance numbers are IBM internal projections and publishes where available IBM S824 data is published/projected
x86 E5
IBM Power S824
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3
Power 8 @ 3.5 GHz
P8 Util: 100% x86 Util: 100%
P8 Util: 65% x86 Util: 40%
P8 Util: 65% x86 Util: 20%
36
24
Benchmark Utilization
Utilization with virtualized x86
Utilization without virtualized x86
OLTP
2400
3585
2.2
3.6
7.2
ERP SAP 2-Tier
16500
21212
1.9
3.2
6.3
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS)
195119
361293
2.7
4.5
9.0
SPECint_rate
1430
1750
1.8
2.9
5.9
SPECfp_rate
965
1370
2.1
3.4
6.8
16500
22543
2.0
3.3
6.5
# Cores
SPECjEnterprise2010 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark s, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014 Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark s, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ LEGEND: SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ Published Projected Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs x86 Typical deceptive x86 positioning … against System Power
Power 8
x86
S824
4s x86
24
60
SpecINT 2006 Rate
1750
2370
x86 35% faster
SpecFP 2006 Rate
1370
1740
x86 27% faster
SPEC jbb2013 max JOPS
361,293
199,752
Power 80% faster
SAP S&D 2 tier (s)
21,212
25,000
x86 18% better
Power 8
x86
Comparison
System
S824
2s x86
# Cores
24
36
SpecINT 2006 Rate
1750
1400
Power 25% faster
SpecFP 2006 Rate
1370
942
Power 27% faster
SPEC jbb2013 max JOPS
361,293
190,674
Power 89% faster
SAP S&D 2 tier (s)
21,212
16,000
Power 33% faster
# Cores
True Scale Out Comparison
Comparison
}
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Comparing 4socket x86 E7 (60 cores) vs S824 POWER8 (24 cores)
POWER8 is the Performance leader in the Scale Out Space with 2/3 of the cores with up to 89% better at the system level performance and up to 2.7x better per core performance
(1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark s, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014 (2) IBM System x3850 X6 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors/ 60 cores/ 120 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 4890 v2; 2.80 GHz, 1024 GB memory; 25,000 SD benchmark s, running Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition and DB2 10; Certification # 2014004. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark . (3) IBM System x 3650 M5, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,000 SD benchmark s, running Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition and DB2 10; Certification # 2014030. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. (4) SPECjbb2013 results are valid as of 10/15/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 15, 2014. (5) SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 10/2/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 6, 2014.
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – Price-Performance x86 CLAIM: • x86 systems have leadership price-performance versus POWER8 systems IBM RESPONSE: • Power systems are actually TCA price-performance advantaged versus x86 systems, particularly when we drive the system utilization levels up with PowerVM enabling consolidation. • Linux on Power versus Linux on X86 comparisons should be with the 822L and 812L. The 824L contains GPUs (and cost) for specific functionality that is not contained in standard x86 configurations. • If database or ISV software costs are included the Power Scale-Out systems can show even more dramatic savings over x86 systems.
Return to x86 Tactics
Scale-Out Price Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs x86 …
This price is an S824L which has 2 GPUs – not in the Intel box!!!! Power 8
X86 2-socket
Advantage
SpecFP 2006 Rate
1130
916
Power 23% faster
System HW Price
$37,305
$21,200
x86 43% better
33 ppf
24 ppf
x86 28% better
Price/Performance
A more comparable model would be the S822L and using SPECfp_rate as opposed to SPECfp_base Power 8 – S822L
X86 2-socket
Advantage
SpecFP 2006 Rate
1252
942
Power 33% faster
System HW Price
$26,005
$21,200
x86 19% better
21 ppf
23 ppf
Power 10% better
Price/Performance
(1) (2)
This is SPECfp_rate2006 base – NOTE: the performance compares were done with SPECfp_rate2006
POWER8 has BETTER PricePerformance when a valid comparison is made.
SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 10/2/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 6, 2014. Pricing is based on Lenovo claims and IBM econfig
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims - RAS x86 CLAIM: • x86 systems have equal RAS to IBM Power systems
IBM RESPONSE: • IBM Power systems have a long history of unmatched Enterprise-class RAS capabilities. X86 systems require expensive cluster software (like RAC) to achieve even minimal RAS.
….. …. …..
Return to x86 Tactics
Power RAS Involves More Than Just the Processor
IBM develops, tests, integrates the entire stack for RAS ►
I/O drawers / memory management unit
►
Processors and all chips in CEC
►
Hypervisor (PowerVM) and VIOS
►
Device drivers, PCI adapters
►
Operating system (AIX, System i, Linux)
►
Middleware and Clustering software
Power Stack - Integrated RAS
Intel Processor RAS
IBM Middleware
What is Missing?
PowerHA AIX, IBM i, Linux
PowerVM Firmware Memory
12
Drivers
POWER U
I/O Drawer
RAS
LPARs / Workloads
Firmware
Memory
x86 U
This document is for IBM and IBM Business Partner use only. It is not intended for client distribution
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – Technology x86 CLAIM: • IBM technology is 3 years behind Intel technology in silicon manufacturing
IBM RESPONSE: • IBM and Intel are delivering 22nm technology. What is important is that IBM core performance improves every generation and Intel performance degrades core to core.
Return to x86 Tactics
POWER8 processor is Purpose Built – resulting in performance over Intel Xeon Sandy Bridge EP E5-26xx
Ivy Bridge EP E5-26xx v2
Haswell EP E5-26xx v3
Ivy Bridge EX E7-88xx v2
1.7-3.7GHz
1.7-3.7GHz
1.9-3.4 GHz
3.1-4.4 GHz
3.0-4.15 GHz
1,2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2*
1, 2, 4
1, 2, 4, 8
Cores per socket
8
12
18
15
8
12
Max Threads / sock
16
24
36
30
32
96
Max L1 Cache
32KB
32KB*
32KB*
32KB*
32KB
64KB
Max L2 Cache
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
256 KB
512 KB
Max L3 Cache
20 MB
30 MB
45 MB
37.5 MB
80 MB
96 MB
Max L4 Cache
0
0
0
0
0
128 MB
31.4-51.2 GB/s
42.6-59.7 GB/s
51.2-68.3 GB/s
68-85** GB/s
100 – 180 GB/sec
230 - 410 GB/sec
Clock rates SMT options
Memory Bandwidth
1.8–3.6GHz
* Intel calls this Hyper-Threading Technology (No HT and with HT)
POWER 7+
POWER8
Return to x86 Tactics
POWER8 moves forwards while Xeon moves backwards IBM POWER systems continue to deliver improved system performance and more value per SW $ spent •
Infrastructure Software Price-performance has been REDUCED on Intel servers –
Software Licensing has increased by 1.5x –
3.09 performance gain came from new version of Java and increased memory (4x more)
Assumes flat system pricing 12 cores versus 8 cores OR 18 versus 12
Performance has not increased proportionally to the chip core count resulting in higher software costs –
x86 publishes on 2-socket systems
x86 “Sandy Bridge”
x86 “Ivy Bridge”
x86 “Haswell”
2-socket
2-socket
2-socket
E5-2690
E5-2697v2
E5-2699v3
16
24
ERP SAP 2-Tier
7960
SPECint_rate
System Performance Ratio
POWER7+
POWER8
System Performance Ratio
IVB to HAS 1.50
2-socket POWER7+
2-socket POWER8
POWER7+ to POWER8
36
SNB to IVB 1.50
16
24
1.50
10253
16500
1.29
1.61
10000
21212
2.12
693
1020
1400
1.47
1.37
884
1750
1.98
SPECfp_rate
510
734
942
1.44
1.28
602
1370
2.28
SPECjbb2013
N/A
63079
195119
-
3.09
NA
361293
-
# Cores
SPECjEnterprise201 8310 11260 N/A 1.35 13161 22543 1.71 IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark s, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: 0 1) http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
POWER8 is 89% better at the system level and 2.7x the core performance
Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark s, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. SPECu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/u2006/results/ SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – SW Costs are lower on x86 x86 CLAIM: • Oracle SW is cheaper on x86 than on Power due to the 0.5 multiplier on x86 versus 1.0 on the Power Solution.
IBM RESPONSE: • PowerVM is approved for sub-capacity licensing, allowing only the cores that are being utilized by the Oracle DB to require licenses; with x86/VMWare solutions, the customer must license every core for both DB and RAC from the time of purchase. • Use the QuickCost TCA/TCO Tool (see IBM and PW links in the notes section) to demonstrate how we save clients real money in TCA and TCO around software licenses and
Oracle Certification For VMware and KVM • • • •
Running Oracle in a VMware ESX cluster you must license ALL of the cores in the cluster Oracle DOES NOT recognise VMware as "hard partitioning" http://blogs.gartner.com/chris-wolf/2010/11/10/oracle-broadens-x86-virtualisation--but-work-remains/ Running Oracle in a VMware ESX cluster is not certified. If is required for unknown problems then you must recreate the problem without VMware installed view Oracle Metalink document 249212.1
• Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 integrates Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) and ships Xen as the default hypervisor, so they are ed by Oracle under the Oracle Linux program. However, Oracle does not Oracle products on RHEL's KVM/Xen. • http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf
Executive Power Summary vs Intel Claims: Power Systems Deliver a Lower TCA and TCO Compared against Linux on Intel •Power Delivers – Better Investment Protection for both HW and SW versus Intel degrading in performance with new products and additional cores (Haswell) – Better RAS features at a lower Cost vs Intel which requires up to 4.5x more downtime – Better Performance at Higher System Utilization/Performance Levels Which we Guarantee – POWER8 65% Sustained Utilization Guarantee with No Degradation in Performance while Intel averages 20-40%
– Better Scalability for intended and unexpected growth – buy what you need, when you need it versus Intel which requires additional system purchases for growth such as storage – Better Security Don’t waste resources (time and money) patching endless systems
– And cost savings with POWER IS the icing on the cake
18
BACKUP
P8 Scale Out Sales Strategy - Memory Fact: P8 Centaur memory is more expensive than standard x86 memory Fact: Centaur memory is what give p8 servers 4x better memory performance * Memory and I/O advantages translate into 2 – 10x better server performance
• Position as Scale Out Servers – Box to box comparison with minimal memory comparable to x86 – Box to box comparison at 128, 256, 1,024GB translates to Power being more expensive than x86. Fact: With higher performance for Power, fewer servers and licenses are needed. Meaning lower TCA and TCO Translation: In actual workloads, Power is less expensive when more than 1 server is required. Power price is less with Server consolidation due to higher performance Don’t get caught up in Box to Box comparisons with x86.
Run a Proof of Concept (PoC) to prove the value of Power 20
© 2014 IBM Corporation
P8 Scale Out Sales Strategy - Storage Fact: P8 2U servers have max of 12 x 2.5” 2TB drives/Server = 24TB Fact: x86 2U servers can have 16 or more 2.5” 2TB drives/Server = 32TB
• Position as Scale Out Servers – Box to box comparison of storage favors x86 Fact: With Power, if more storage is needed, a storage drawer can be added. Fact: With x86 servers, if more storage is needed, a new server is required which means more cores (more license cost) Translation: In actual Big Data environments, Terabytes up to Petabytes of data are in use. Adding storage drawers is more cost effective than adding additional servers to add storage.
Don’t get caught up in Box to Box comparisons with x86.
Run a Proof of Concept (PoC) to prove the value of Power 21
© 2014 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Deliver Over TWICE the Throughput Compared to Ivy Bridge-EP at 47% Lower Cost Web Application Power S824 Linux
WAS WAS
WAS WAS
…..
RHEL RHEL RHEL RHEL
WAS WAS
RHEL RHEL
WAS WAS
4 VMs
182,672
Interactions per second
2.1x Faster
RHEL RHEL
$3.11
PowerVM
DB2
2S/24 Core POWER8 (3.525 GHz)
per UI per sec
WebSphere on platform Database off platform
Both Servers configured to achieve maximum throughput
Online Banking Workload v3.6
47%
Lower cost per UI per sec
Ivy Bridge EP Competitor WAS WAS
WAS WAS
RHEL RHEL RHEL RHEL
…..
WAS WAS
WAS WAS
6 VMs
RHEL RHEL RHEL RHEL
Competitive Hypervisor
DB2
85,939
Interactions per second
$5.84
per UI per sec
WebSphere on platform Database off platform
2S/24 Core Ivy Bridge-EP (2.7 GHz) This is an IBM internal study designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload usage in the marketplace. It consists of a POWER8 S824 with 24 cores, 3.52 GHz, 512GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1 compared to an Ivy Bridge EP 24 cores 2.7 GHz, 256 GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1. The results were obtained under laboratory conditions, and not in an actual customer environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such, customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and other systems variations or testing conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment. Prices, where applicable, are
based on published US list prices for both IBM and competitor, and the Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA) includes the list HW and SW prices and 3 years of service & which is then divided by the number of transactions to get $ per interaction per second. 22 © 2014 IBM Corporation
Bon-Ton boosts e-commerce throughput by 2.5x and improves the customer experience while controlling costs
2.5x throughput for more orders per minute
No increase in licensing costs
50% fewer servers required compared with x86 systems
• Bon-Ton needed to expand capacity of its ecommerce environment to handle seasonal demand spikes and significant ongoing customer growth • Migrated WebSphere Commerce from an x86 environment to Linux on Power Systems and PowerVM virtualization • Substantially enhanced throughput without increasing per-core software licensing costs.
Related Documents 171j1w
Comp P8 Vs X86 2j4y1v
March 2021 0
Arm Vs X86 2y5b44
December 2019 34
P8 Beginners Guide P8 De 705j5m
March 2023 0
Ibm Aix Power Vs Linux X86 En 2273w
November 2022 0
Adroid Tv X86 7.1 _ Nougat-x86 9102s
August 2021 0
Cm-x86-13.0-r1-android-x86 5k5eq
February 2021 0More Documents from "KOOL" 1b3s13
Comp P8 Vs X86 2j4y1v
March 2021 0
Low Power Techniques In Vlsi 3621l
April 2022 0
El Video Foro 5pr67
December 2019 37
Basics Of Matlab 1 1g6zc
May 2023 0
Farm Managment In Agriculture Extension In Pakistan 2qh2r
December 2019 35