Featured Articles

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia’s original Shield console launched last summer to mixed reviews. It went on sale in the US and so far Nvidia…

More...
AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

We had a chance to talk about AMD’s upcoming products with John Byrne, Chief Sales Officer, AMD. We covered a number…

More...
AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

We had a chance to talk to John Byrne who spent the last two years as Senior Vice President and Chief…

More...
OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OnePlus is one of the few small companies that might disrupt the Android phone market, dominated by giant outfits like Samsung.…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Wednesday, 08 December 2010 12:06

Oracle halves cores on Sparc

Written by Nick Farell


Wants to improve thread performance
Storage outfit Oracle has said it will halve the number of cores in its next Sparc processor and instead improve its single-thread performance.

According to a recently released Oracle road map the T4, will have eight cores on each chip, down from 16 in the current Sparc T3. Both will run the same eight compute threads per core. Currently chip makers have been boosting performance by adding cores. The Sparc 3 was the first  16-core server processor on the market.

However while chips with high core counts  are good at jobs that can be broken into many smaller parts they are not so good at database and ERP applications. It looks like Oracle is positioning Sparc  as a general purpose processor and made the T4 more balanced.

Oracle  has been doing well selling its high-end M series servers based on the Sparc64 VII+ processor designed by Fujitsu because it has strong single-thread performance. Fujitsu recently announced a Sparc64 VII+ that doubles the cache size over the current chip and increases the clock speed to 3.0GHz.



Last modified on Wednesday, 08 December 2010 14:10

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
0 #1 JAB Creations 2010-12-08 17:38
AMD's server line saw much more demand for their 12 core CPU's then they did for their 8 core CPU's so this doesn't strike me as a wise decision. I trust AMD's market survival decisions that doesn't screw any one over and I don't trust the commie run Oracle corporation who lock their customers (businesses) in to death-grip spending.
 
 
+1 #2 hoohoo 2010-12-08 19:38
JAB... how exactly is Oracle a communist operation?

Not everything you dislike is automatically communist! Communism is not responsible for all the bad things!
 
 
+2 #3 yasin 2010-12-08 20:23
JAB Creations
----------------------------
i'm pretty certain communists don't run oracle.
 
 
0 #4 hoohoo 2010-12-09 00:39
Further @JAB,

Market systems easily support corps as hard nosed as Oracle if the corp in question operates against limited competition - is best of class in it's market.

Oracle has no monopoly but had arguably best end to end DB/middleware/front-end solution and probably still does. Oracle charges what the market will bear.

Exercise of power is not pretty: Oracle certainly exercises power. But Oracle is subject to the market, it cannot force people to use it's products, thus there is a limit to it's power.

The USSR or China (or...) also exercise(d) power, but disallowed competition, allowed no possible alternative. Thus no limit to power short of revolution.

This last is the mistake you make in calling Oracle communist.
 
 
0 #5 hoohoo 2010-12-09 00:45
Further @JAB,

Finally, for a well analyzed case in point outside of IT, go find Ayn Rand's analysis of the domestic steel market in the USA in the 50s & 60s... her case why US Steel (IIRC) ought not be subject to anti-combine investigation & prosecution.

In a nutshell she said US Steel was very dominant in the market but the threat of competition was forcing it to improve it's product and the value in $ terms of it's product.

Which amounted to the market mechanism working. I thought her case made sense, I still do.

FWIW that was different from, say, Intel pressuring it's customers not to buy from AMD: US Steel did not apparently use such tactics*.

*Edit: redaction. Looked back, no info that US Steel did or did not exert pressure.
 
 
0 #6 tekken 2010-12-09 01:43
Ayn Rand was a failed screenplay writer, her musings on complex issues such as economics or philosophy are pretty irrelevant.

I have no clue what this has to do with Oracle's SPARC.
 
 
0 #7 hoohoo 2010-12-09 02:39
@Tekken

I'm not up for a serious debate via Fudzilla's comment system of economic theory... the screaming from 3rd parties would be too much. I would do it elsewhere though.

I do think that Rand's analysis of economics is pretty strong - certainly no worse than any of the canonical economists. Her analysis of the case I mentioned I stand by, I think she was correct.

If we bring politics and philosophy into it, I cannot argue for her so well. she was too strong on the '-isms'. Too idealistic.

That said... Rand's stuff is at least parse-able which is more than I can say for the renaissance theorists. They all seem to have been paid by the syllable. Rand was at least concise.

My $0.02. And... I do know I might be wrong.
 
 
0 #8 hoohoo 2010-12-09 02:42
@Tekken

"I have no clue what this has to do with Oracle's SPARC."

Nothing per se. I was reacting to JAB Creations' periodic irruptions that what ever he does not like is 'communist', when his objections are patently about prices.

Which got us into politics.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments