back to article IBM rides nightmarish hardware landscape on OpenPOWER Consortium raft

IBM is going to ride out the storm rippling through the hardware industry by donating one of its crown jewels to a consortium of partner companies with the hope it can make a bit of cash off the ensuing sales. At a press conference in San Francisco on Wednesday Big Blue - along with partners from Google, Nvidia, Mellanox, Tyan …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. BlueGreen

    arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

    What does ibm bring to the table in this that would interest anyone over x86/x64? I can't see anything.This reeks of fear and desperation. If they'd done this years ago, but of course the gravy train was too addictive to derail.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

      "What does ibm bring to the table in this that would interest anyone over x86/x64?"

      Oh, maybe an established 64-bit system (compared to ARM) with a better underlying architecture (compared to x86) and willingness to license at affordable costs?

      Yes, Intel has the lead in process technology, and yes the legacy software market for x86 is very important and deeply ingrained, but there is a lot of new stuff that has no such constraint.

      1. BlueGreen

        Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

        > Oh, maybe an established 64-bit system (compared to ARM)

        You misunderstand. ARM has low power. If you want high power you've got x64 which is mature, cheap and fast.

        > with a better underlying architecture (compared to x86)

        define 'better'. Even devs almost never see the details of the arch so that way it's irrelevant. App users will never, ever see this so they don't care. So maybe technically better but so what? I doubt ancient architectural cruft in intel chips now adds anything noticeable to the price. (NB the alpha looked in the mirror and was the fairest by far).

        > and willingness to license at affordable costs?

        Who cares? If you want a high power chip use intel. And slot in a gpu.

        > but there is a lot of new stuff that has no such constraint.

        It's a business question: If it's new and low power use arm. If it's new and high power, use intel/amd. Again, what does power bring to the party?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

          Again, what does power bring to the party?

          Better processors.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

            > Better processors.

            I've argued 'better' is not very meaningful. Please define your 'better'.

            > or just use a power chip and save half the power of the intel chip and all the power of the gpu.

            Reeealy? Where are the refs showing that POWER is half the power of an equivalent intel and 'all the power of the gpu' (and for what price??). You either know a lot more than me about POWER or a lot less, and I'd like to find out which.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

              Reeealy? Where are the refs showing that POWER is half the power of an equivalent intel and 'all the power of the gpu' (and for what price??). You either know a lot more than me about POWER or a lot less, and I'd like to find out which.

              Go look at the power consumption figures for similar performing systems on top500.org

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

          Who cares? If you want a high power chip use intel. And slot in a gpu.

          or just use a power chip and save half the power of the intel chip and all the power of the gpu.

        3. PowerMan@thinksis

          Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

          It is about reliability, serviceability and operational benefits. What platform was Target running in each store? What virtualization product leads the pack in CVE's? Are you in favor of any OS on x86 or just one, say Linux? If so, is Linux the best OS because it runs on x86 or does it make x86 better? If you like Linux and it makes x86 better then I would argue that on Power you would love it because Power makes Linux even better. It brings open source as close to a commercial Unix OS possible while still maintaining all of the open source characteristics. Lastly, even if Power8 didn't outperform x86, it comes down to TCO. TCO is made up of software licensing, software maintenance, # of FTE's required to support the solution, # of copies of virtualization & OS and all of the other software required. When you can run 1 thread in 1 VM, 2 threads in another VM, 4 threads in another VM and 8 threads in another VM all with a mix of dedicated or virtual I/O then Power brings a reduced footprint which can drive the processor utilization up to 90% delivering quality of service and availability to each VM at massive software savings.

      2. Fazal Majid

        Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

        Better single-thread performance is a valid answer. I'm sure there are algorithms even Google's PhD's haven't been able to parallelize yet, and need the fastest cores it can get. CPU power consumption is only a small part of server power utilization, and I find it hard to believe POWER can match the throughput per dollar of x64, but then again neither will x64 match server ARM64 when it starts shipping in volume in a couple of years' time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

          Sorry, you lost me there.

          Better single-thread performance is a valid answer. I'm sure there are algorithms even Google's PhD's haven't been able to parallelize yet, and need the fastest cores it can get.

          I reference the top500 list for HPC systems, and you talk about single-thread performance and a lack of parallelised processing?

          CPU power consumption is only a small part of server power utilization, and I find it hard to believe POWER can match the throughput per dollar of x64

          Again, I reference a site which compares comparable performance of comparable systems and you say you don't believe that the throughputs can be matched?

          The information is in the list.

          For example Number 7 on the list:

          Manufacturer: Dell

          Cores: 462,462

          Linpack Performance (Rmax) 5,168.1 TFlop/s

          Theoretical Peak (Rpeak) 8,520.1 TFlop/s

          Power: 4,510.00 kW

          And Number 8 on the list.

          Manufacturer: IBM

          Cores: 458,752

          Linpack Performance (Rmax) 5,008.9 TFlop/s

          Theoretical Peak (Rpeak) 5,872.0 TFlop/s

          Power: 2,301.00 kW

          Similar number of cores.

          Similiar performance.

          Running the same benchmarking code.

          Vast difference in power consumption.

          And the IBM system is an old one by current POWER standards, using processors which burn more power, and powering three times as much memory.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

            Ok, you know less than me. From your own list.

            rank..chip.....name........linpack..power(KW)..lin/power

            1.....xeon.....Tianhe-2....33863....17808......1.90

            2.....opteron..Titan.......17590....8209.......2.14

            3.....power....Sequoia.....17173....7890.......2.18

            4.....sparc....K computer..10510....12660......0.83

            5.....power....Mira........8587.....3945.......2.18

            6.....xeon.....Piz Daint...6271.....2325.......2.70

            7.....xeon.....Stampede....5168.....4510.......1.15

            8.....power....JUQUEEN.....5009.....2301.......2.18

            Arguing with amateurs is just boring.

            And to PowerMan@thinksis, marketing men posting empty marketing tripe is embarrassing.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

              Ok, you know less than me. From your own list.

              Except I've already used numbers 7 and 8 from that list in a previous post to show you don't know what you're talking about. Nice try with the name calling, but I find arguing with children boring.

              1. BlueGreen

                Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

                And I've used your own reference to show that number 6, piz daint, is the most efficient. It's a xeon in case you can't read.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

                  And I've used your own reference to show that number 6, piz daint, is the most efficient. It's a xeon in case you can't read.

                  Oh I can read, can you?

                  Number 6

                  Cores = 115,984

                  Power Consumption = 2,325 kW

                  Number 8

                  Cores = 458,752

                  Power Consumption = 2,301 kW

                  Also it's interesting to note that in order for Number 6 to achieve the performance it has, it has to use Tesla GPUs (like all the Intel systems at the top of the list), and they drive up the power usage quite substantially. Imagine what coupling such a GPU to a CPU which can already achieve similar performance as the CPU+GPU setup... that'll be why NVIDIA are interested.

                  Maybe you should look up the word "comparable" and find out what that means before you go look at the list again.

                  1. BlueGreen

                    Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

                    > Oh I can read, can you?

                    Well one of us can't. From your previous post

                    > or just use a power chip and save half the power of the intel chip and all the power of the gpu.

                    Well, it turns out the most energy efficient (by linpacks, not cores, normal people care about results, or do you think MOAR C0R3S = BETTAR?) is in fact a xeon with (drumroll) GPUs added in, according to you.

                    By 'comparable' I was using flops/power. Seems an intel with gpus wins on that fron. Like I said originally.

                    Just to be clear, I think competition is better, I just don't see how ibm can compete just on being (arguably) better tech.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

                      Well, it turns out the most energy efficient (by linpacks, not cores, normal people care about results, or do you think MOAR C0R3S = BETTAR?) is in fact a xeon with (drumroll) GPUs added in, according to you.

                      Ummm... OK lets put it another way.

                      If you took the Telsas out of the intel systems where would they be on that list? Would they be on that list at all?

                      The grunt of the Intel based systems is being provided by the Teslas, not by the Intel CPUs.

                      Now if you coupled those Teslas with POWER CPUs...

                      I just don't see how ibm can compete just on being (arguably) better tech.

                      Well to be fair it can't be any worse then IBM have managed to do with POWER on their own, they have this great CPU, but they haven't been able to sell it with anything like the sucess Intel has. Now some of that down to the tie up between MS and intel and the inevitable link in many peoples minds that Windows ran in "Intel inside" systems. AMD struggled with that one for a while as well.

                      To be fair though MS did create POWERPC versions of Windows, but IBM couldn't make anything with it... they are notoriously bad at marketing...

                      Maybe this won't go anywhere... if it does it's very unlikely to be because IBM marketed it well... but them other companies... they know how to market things, and they have technology which can genuinely bring enhancements to the architecture IBM created with POWER.

                      That last point is your best one, IBM are to technology what Sony are to Betamax. They have some amazing tech, but they can't market it at all.

                      1. BlueGreen

                        Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

                        > If you took the Telsas out of the intel systems where would they be on that list? Would they be on that list at all?

                        Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know. But if they do the job, what would you do?

                        > Well to be fair it can't be any worse then IBM have managed to do with POWER on their own

                        Yep :( And IMO they've left it too late. A decade+ ago when they were in apple they could have used that foothold to seriously hurt intel but they took the short term view. Oh well.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @obnoxiousGit

                          But if they do the job, what would you do?

                          I would consider that attempts efforts to couple POWER CPUs with Tesla GPUs a good thing... in fact I do.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @BlueGreen

              I'd like to replace a POWER system with an Intel system (note this is a system, not a cluster), which Intel system would you recommend?

              This is the POWER system I'd like to replace.

              http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/uk/power/hardware/795/

              I eagerly await your suggestions.

              1. BlueGreen

                Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @BlueGreen

                > I eagerly await your suggestions.

                It depends on what you're familiar with, what software you're running, what your budget is, if the current system is satisfactory (other than performance) etc. If you've got a power and you need to upgrade, the 'best' system is most likely another power.

                And if you're running intel then the best upgrade is likely to be another intel. Note: 'best' is a matter of cash and systems, not the prettiest chip.

                Unless IBM can show a clear reason to move from x64 to power, how are they going to displace an already very established market with huge lock-in?

              2. PowerMan@thinksis

                Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ? @BlueGreen

                @obnoxiousGit well suits you as its clear you are a contrarian who likes to argue for arguments sake. Looking for gotchas and wild goose chasing challenges. There have been plenty of reasons provided which you fail to accept, You can make all of the noise you want if that is what fulfills you. Customers who real problems though are not looking to follow the sheep. That is what got them where they are at now. Scale out with great when Unix was big iron and expensive and all they had were 2, 4 & 8 core servers doing file and print services or low end SQL server environments. Just because the compute is now 15 co per socket doesn't mean the server is capable of 2-8X the workloads. Server has to be reliable. There are vast differences in this area among the various vendors. Two vendors I have seen which standout are IBM and Fujitsu - both make a quality x86 server with enterprise RAS features. There are other very popular vendors that have vanilla RAS features who focus on commodity price focused servers and no technology. I wouldn't replace a 795 with 1 x86...I would replace a 40 core x86 with a 4 core Power server. I would replace 500 x86 servers with a single 795. Move on!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

            <quote>Better single-thread performance is a valid answer. I'm sure there are algorithms even Google's PhD's haven't been able to parallelize yet, and need the fastest cores it can get.

            I reference the top500 list for HPC systems, and you talk about single-thread performance and a lack of parallelised processing?</quote>

            Yes, the two are not conflicting. HPC tasks are typically "tightly bound", and can have scaling issues requiring lots of internode comms, compared to e.g. Hadoop / mapreduce problems. Weather and climate, for example: many codes using Fourier transforms, leading to N^2 communications with extra processes or threads, meaning you (1) want the best single-thread performance, (2) heavy IO, hence bringing OpenPOWER partners into the mix.

            Here "better architecture" can mean its easier to increase both single-thread performance and to add more IO cleanly compared to complex x86 architectures. Time will tell.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

              Yes, the two are not conflicting. HPC tasks are typically "tightly bound", and can have scaling issues requiring lots of internode comms, compared to e.g. Hadoop / mapreduce problems. Weather and climate, for example: many codes using Fourier transforms, leading to N^2 communications with extra processes or threads, meaning you (1) want the best single-thread performance, (2) heavy IO, hence bringing OpenPOWER partners into the mix.

              Here "better architecture" can mean its easier to increase both single-thread performance and to add more IO cleanly compared to complex x86 architectures. Time will tell.

              Ah sorry I didn't see where you were coming from, I get it now. I was off on physical hardware stuff, talking power consumption to physical hardware config. Thanks for replying.

    2. PowerMan@thinksis

      Re: arm -> low power. POWER -> ?

      IBM brings innovations, technology, competition and the only alternative to a platform that must be cobbled together with expensive software and other unnatural means to overcome its many deficiencies. With these announcements customers now can choose to run commercial IBM i applications in a integrated stack, scalable Unix applications with AIX and now choice of Linux distro's with Ubuntu, SuSE and RedHat support LE or BE all managed using a OpenStack based solution. All of this AND it comes on the most secure virtualization platform outside of the mainframe where the answer is Yes to your question if you can do something with PowerVM vs the alternatives. Finish it off with performance that bests both the Power7+ servers it replaces and is more than a leap frog ahead of x86 but some serious distance. That isn't about bragging, that is about reducing software licensing cost.

      What would you rather have? One chipset, one virtualization offering, one OS, one storage vendor, one DB.....? Do you want one TV channel? Cars only in one color? Come on, competition breeds innovation - you should applaud this and be glad to see it because if it doesn't make the x86 vendors better it will make the ARM vendors better.

  2. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

    ARM have opened people's eyes to the fact that there are alternatives to Wintel. I don't know if it's too late for IBM & the Openpower alliance, but I hope they succeed. Competition can only be good for the end customer.

  3. Fazal Majid

    It has to do with the economics of processor R&D and fab investment. Intel (and AMD) server processor R&D rides on the coat-tails of the much larger desktop/laptop processor market with its huge economies of scale. Niche processors like POWER have much smaller shipments to amortize the R&D on, or build a use-case for hugely expensive leading-edge fabs. There is thus a chicken-and-egg effect that prevents them from reaching the price/performance point of Intel processors.

    Even Intel is feeling the pinch, as shown by Krzanich's recent moves to open Intel fabs to third-party designed chips. AMD couldn't keep up, despite having invented x64, and had to spin off its own fabs.. Even Intel and HP couldn't make Itanium succeed in the marketplace, despite access to Intel's fab prowess and HP's server market share, it's hard to see how a hollow shell of a company like IBM could achieve that. Google might, but just how strong is its commitment to the platform? Enough to fund ongoing R&D into the platform? Seems doubtful - their hardware investments this far have concentrated on cutting margins and middlemen, e.g. building their own switches from Broadcom parts.

    ARM has even higher volumes than Intel, if not fat juicy margins to fund R&D from, and is thus the more likely disruptor, something Intel is keenly aware of, as ARM's strategy is essentially the same one Intel used with great success to kill off RISC architectures.

    1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

      Even Intel and HP couldn't make Itanium succeed in the marketplace, despite access to Intel's fab prowess and HP's server market share

      The failure of Itanic was, despite Intel & HP's best efforts, due to two simple reasons: It was slow and expensive.

    2. SemiChemE

      @ Fazal Majid

      I would hardly call the 4th largest Tech company in the world by Market Cap and 5th largest by Revenue a "hollow shell of a company". It ranks above Microsoft (#7), Amazon (#8), Google (#11), Dell (#12), and even intel (#15) in revenues. If anyone can pull off a coup over intel, it's IBM.

      Regarding semiconductor R&D, IBM is closer to intel than you might think. Why else would Global Foundries, Samsung, ST Microelectronics, and UMC all pay IBM millions to gain access to it? And how else can they be rolling out a chip with a 30-100% single thread performance advantage over x86, not to mention significantly larger on-chip caches, 4x threads per core and a 50x to 1000x advantage on specific Big Data workloads. (see http://www.extremetech.com/computing/181102-ibm-power8-openpower-x86-server-monopoly)

      1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

        Re: @ Fazal Majid

        You also have to factor in that IBM develops POWER and Z series processors in parallel. Much of the technology in chip design (and quite a bit more under the covers) is common between the two families of processor. So POWER does have a high revenue earning sibling to help it out.

        They also have some history in the embedded processor market. POWER chips are not as common as ARM, but they did get some traction in NAS and set-top boxes, and although they lost out in the most recent generations of consoles, the Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and Wii all used PowerPC processors, and the WiiU still does.

  4. asdf
    Joke

    why just POWER?

    Why not also Itanium and SPARC? I keed I keed. Seriously though SPARC already tried the open thing and look how great its doing.

    1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

      Re: why just POWER?

      SPARC is pretty much synonymous with Sun & Solaris. According to the Wikipedia SPARC page there are a variety of people using Sparc. Apart from Fujitsu, I wasn't aware of the others.

      Compare that to Power. Sure IBM are big users of it (they designed it!), but it's been used by Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Cisco, etc. None of these are niche companies that bought just a handful of Power CPUs, showing that Power isn't just a one-trick pony.

      1. asdf

        Re: why just POWER?

        Yeah I wasn't so much ripping on POWER as the shambling zombie that is SPARC. Eventually Larry and others will give it the double tap it deserves. I always said IBM would be the last to give up its proprietary CPUs so perhaps this will breath even more life into their POWER line for awhile.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: why just POWER?

        Apple has not used POWER in years. At least 2007. Macs are Intel, iPhone/iPAD are ARM. Power's volume is lower today than SPARC was in its heyday. And the mainframe does not run Power either. I fail to see what this brings to the table. The game is over over. X86 can satisfy 95% of the needs out there, and for low power it's going to be between ARM and Atom. X86 is ubiquitous it's used in PCs, servers, storage controllers, RAID controllers, routers, etc.

        1. PowerMan@thinksis

          Re: why just POWER?

          System z and Power share IP so even though one is CISC and the other RISC there is quite a bit in common - which is great for Power consumers! In order to see the value, one has to open their eyes. Power delivers and has delivered a reliable platform for years unlike x86 which is getting better but the key word is "getting". Layer on top the secure, no CVE PowerVM virtualization that should be called "Flexible" as you can have it your way unlike the leading x86 offering supporting the 2 thread only servers. Threads are on or off unlike Power which can have 1, 2, 4 or 8 set separately in each VM for any workload type further improving the financial justification. x86 doesn't satisfy 95% of the needs as that implies 95% of the users are satisfied. I would argue the constant instability, security issues, patch Mondays and the answer to everything is "just buy another cheap server" with no regard for the actual cost of what it means to add the 200th server to the environment when those 200 might consolidate onto a single Power server. It's not that x86 dominates rather than 95% are misinformed of the changes Power7 brought customers as IBM changed directions to battle x86 and the major OS and virtualization players. With Power8 the value proposition is stronger and if you think x86 is everywhere then your eyes are wide shut as Power processors are prevalent throughout our lives starting with your vehicle.

    2. PowerMan@thinksis

      Re: why just POWER?

      Having worked at Sun for 10 years I have my own perspective. They embraced "open" begrudgingly as a defensive measure. When they did, they restricted and locked down the Sun Linux so it was unusable. It was all in a effort to protect their profitable high end SPARC business. To IBM's credit they are not afraid to turn the ship into the wind and take on the competition. As a IBM BP I can tell you it makes it more challenging for us but at the same time I have the choice to embrace outstanding technology and go out and compete OR feel sorry for myself and simply ride it out and jump on another bandwagon. I like the competition so I'll compete! Go Power! Power has a offering that has price parity with x86 in the scale out space as well as the traditional high end servers to meet the most demanding customer needs.

  5. Long John Brass

    Just give me a ...

    My wish list would be a mini/micro ATX board with

    Power CPU say 8 core single socket would be fine but dual socket would be most sexy

    Ummm .. say a max 64-128GiB Ram, standard allotment of PCI, USB, network and usual toys

    But ... Please please please bring back a on board (not USB) serial port

    I realise I'm a minority in that I run a Linux shop at home so I don't care one way or another WRT x86(-64). I'd love a 64bit ARM variant of the above too :)

  6. John Savard

    Ecosystem

    IBM has a huge ecosystem around z/Architecture. But it chooses to milk it as a cash cow for all it's worth. If they instead made z/Architecture chips available at PowerPC prices for similar performance - assuming there's no technical reason why not - and put something derived from OS/2 on them, so it would also have a GUI, they would have something sought after.

  7. Elmars

    No surprise Apple missing from the party

    Had to check my calendar. About 25 years ago, IBM tried the same thing with its power chips. This produced the PowerPC architecture that was supposed to be an industry standard, but ended up being an only-Apple chip. Last time you saw it used, it was called the G5. Then it came back in the game console market, but that is dying off right now.

    So aside from all of the optimism, what is to keep IBM from losing interest again?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No surprise Apple missing from the party

      Last time you saw it used, it was called the G5. Then it came back in the game console market...

      IBM have an entire division dedicated to POWER systems, many of the systems your daily life depends on run on POWER systems. You might want to have a bit of a read around and find out a bit more about that before pronouncing on where POWER chips have been used.

    2. Liam Proven Silver badge

      Re: No surprise Apple missing from the party

      Oh, yes, Apple-only... except for a few minority platforms. So tiny you probably never heard of them. Let me see, there was...

      • the Playstation 3 from an obscure little Japanese company called Sony.

      • the Wii and WiiU from another unheard-of Japanese outfit, Nintendo

      • oh, and the xBox 360... who was that, ah, yes, Microsoft.

      80 million units of the first, 100 million of the second, 80 million of the third. Over a quarter of a billion PowerPC CPUs shipped in those 3 alone.

      But they're not desktop computers, so you ignore them.

      That's ignoring embedded systems etc.

      Tell me again how that means Apple-only, would you?

  8. HeKnows
    Megaphone

    Missing big picture

    Guys, You are missing the bigger picture. Processor is just one thing. It is a good piece of HW, but can do everything by itself.

    OpenPower is about several other stuff:

    - Higher core performance. Less cores = less licensing, less space, less power... other comments covered it but companies would love use less licenses on smaller datacenters.

    - Higher multi-threading. Each core = 8 threads (with perf) vs 2 threads on x86.

    - Virtualization via HW = less licensing, higher security, better stability (both PowerVM and KVM), open standards, less overhead. One less critical piece of SW to manage.

    - Little Endianess & Big Endianess = Ease to migrate old and build new multiplatform apps

    - CAPI - It not about supporting GPUS. It is about having GPUS and CPUS sharing the same memory space. Like having a server with 2 flavors of CPU and allowing it to decide where it will run the code. GPUs can access server RAM natively, no need for programming it via SW = This allows for servers that can offload processing to specialized GPUs without fancy coding or specialized SW.

    - Same goes for FPGAs. Having FPGAs for compression, encryption, network acceleration, you name it... all natively being accessed by the servers CPU and sharing memory space.

    - Tighly NIC coupled HW - In the yesterday event, Mellanox talked about Tightly Coupled CPUs via NICs. A Bunch of small servers, working as a single entity via a high-speed low-latency network.

    The overall picture is bigger and the CPU itself is just part of it... by having an ecosystem developing things around the CPU, you can have servers optimized to almost anything you can imagine. X86 can do something similar ? Yeah, they have GPUs and FPGAs, and Networking... but is is all about the SW making all these parts work together. The HW itself does not care what other HW you have on the same box.

    That is all the fuss about the openPower. HW aware of other HW pieces working together to allow for for easier and more powerful SW.

  9. Liam Proven Silver badge

    If only this had happened when Apple still used them

    PowerPC might have had a chance. As it is, the last vestige in the GP computing market is the Amiga X1000, as discussed here:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/21/amiga_x1000/

    Uses a PWRficient PA6T-1682M, made by, ironically, a subdivision of Apple.

    Talk about things going in circles...

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't feel the love

    The comments on this post reflect the strong ANTI Intel faction at STG from day one. No wonder they had to sell it off in the end to Lenovo.

    1. PowerMan@thinksis

      Re: I don't feel the love

      There was no Anti-x86 faction in STG. There were 4 distinct products in STG - z, p, storage and x.They are all distinct. Two problems I've observed is IBM won't make a inferior server product if they can help it. Thus, the X5 and X6 are top of their class. However, the market doesn't buy x86 for it's technology they would rather buy it for its price point. So, a highly reliable X6 3850 is 30% higher than a commodity x86 server from some vanilla vendor. Secondly, IBM made/makes it a challenge to sell their x86 servers compared to other vendors. Other vendors tear down obstacles whereas it seems like IBM puts them up. It's a shame because from a technology perspective it is outstanding in the x86 space. It's not Power but I would select it for the right workload.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You never worked in STG

        You never worked in STG then? The mainframe and Power guys always spouted the had the best technology. Infighting between all three compute brands. I guess they got what they always wanted with the sale of System x to Lenovo. I look forward to that revenue growth on what's left to sell.

        1. PowerMan@thinksis

          Re: You never worked in STG

          Are you confused about product positioning, features, etc. I was in STG with Power. This is no different than Lexus vs Toyota vs Scion. or Cadillac vs Buick vs Saturn - pick your analogy. Power & z didn't fight. Power was and is thankful for Z as the platform owes a lot of its technology to what the ultimate compute platform offers. Sounds like you have the same Napoleon complex the other x86 vendors have with their virtualization technologies - we can do what the big boys do and our servers cost $10K. The reality is you are letting your emotions and fondness for your preferred platform make you sensitive to product positioning. Z servers have their place in the data center along with Power just like x86. x86 vendors are trying to grow their marketshare by saying more cores and more memory makes a enterprise server.

          I am no longer at IBM and instead a reseller. If you were sensitive to what you heard in STG from Power sellers then you won't be happy with Power8 because that platform is bringing it's enterprise features of reliability, scalability, security, virtualization and flexibility with AIX and Ubuntu, SuSE and Redhat Linux running Linux apps in LE or BE mode. Port and compile or just compile and run to get 2X the performance and utilization levels up to 90%. Scale out or scale up with Power8 at x86 price parity, consolidate dozens of x86 at x86 price comparable or go with enterprise Power servers to run mission critical workloads 24x7x365....and yes, if customers need fault tolerance with the ultimate in reliability and serviceability then they should go with a mainframe.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: You never worked in STG

            Where I worked it was almost like 4 different companies in STG. With a religious zeal that one platform was superior than another. Mainframe guys looked down on everyone else from their ivory tower. Power guys looked down on Intel.

            I think STG will probably be more focused now with just Z and Power. I even think the OpenPower group is actually a good idea too. There's now no excuses. If they do well and grow revenue, I'll be be the first to raise my glass to them.

  11. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

    A cheap DIY POWER system...

    ... based on one of those Tyan whitebox boards does sound like it might be a fun project. I always wanted one of the short-lived RS/6000 laptops (the model 860, according to Wikipedia), just for the hell of it.

    It'd have to run Linux or perhaps a BSD variant, but that's fine. I don't mind AIX, but I don't need to run it on a hobby machine.

    It's been a long time since I played with building a system from OTS components, but this might tempt me back into it. Doing it in an old Thinkpad case (I have two or three largely-defunct old Thinkpads lying around) would be even better, but getting everything to fit seems unlikely.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like