I thought this was interesting:

https://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Talos-Secure-Workstation

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@bison

Nice find for the price of an X1000.
Kamelito

@bison

8 core Power 8 Workstation, looks good !

http://www.hpcwire.com/2015/06/09/ibm-power8-outperforms-x86-on-stac-benchmarks/

Last edited by bennymee on 05-Feb-2016 at 08:05 PM.

@bison

https://raptorengineeringinc.com/TALOS/prerelease_info.php

Quote:

Raptor Engineering is currently gauging interest to determine if demand for the Talos™ Secure Workstation is sufficient to make production viable. If a sufficient number of people are interested in purchasing the Talos™ mainboard, Raptor Engineering is committed to developing and manufacturing it.

So it is nothing more than an idea for now.

_________________

@bison

Will be watching this. Open system is good. Thanks for finding it.

@bison

AmigaOS 4.x would be nice on this.. ;)
I would probably buy one..

@Amigo1

Quote:

I would probably buy one

I already posted a similar sentiment on Morphzone.

Imagine, a PowerPC board that could actually compete.

@iggy

Quote:

Imagine, a PowerPC board that could actually compete.

Performance-wise. Power requirements would be probably prohibitive for home use.

@iggy

Quote:

Imagine, a PowerPC board that could actually compete.

Not really. Even in their own benchmarks in most tests it gets beaten by E3-1270 which is $500 with motherboard compared to their offering of $3100 for motherboard + CPU.

@Rose

Quote:

Not really. Even in their own benchmarks in most tests it gets beaten by E3-1270 which is $500 with motherboard compared to their offering of $3100 for motherboard + CPU.

I don´t have single core benchmark results for Power8, but 4 GHz Power7 is probably (at least) 4x faster than P5020 2 GHz (in SpecInt2006 = single core integer performance).

@pavlor

Quote:

4 GHz Power7

Power8.

@Rose

Quote:

in their own benchmarks in most tests it gets beaten by E3-1270

You have made an unsupported statement.
References?

And as most X86 servers are designed for at most 8 processors, its not really a good comparison.
A fairer comparison would be a system based on Intels Xeon E7 v3 line, not an older chip like you have mentioned.

"24 POWER8 cores in a relatively reasonably priced IBM POWER8 server can beat 36 Intel Haswell cores by a considerable margin " - Anandtech

http://anandtech.com/show/9193/the-xeon-e78800-v3-review/17

Do your research before you make silly comments.

Last edited by iggy on 06-Feb-2016 at 02:52 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 06-Feb-2016 at 02:51 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 06-Feb-2016 at 02:46 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 06-Feb-2016 at 02:46 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 06-Feb-2016 at 02:42 PM.

@iggy

Quote:

Power8.

I don´t have SpecInt2006 result for Power8, that is why I used Power7 comparison.

Quote:

"24 POWER8 cores in a relatively reasonably priced IBM POWER8 server can beat 36 Intel Haswell cores by a considerable margin " - Anandtech

Single core performance is far more important for our needs.

@pavlor

Using a Xeon processor in a non SMP application would be as foolish as your unsupported statements.

Again- "by a considerable margin"

@iggy

Quote:

Using a Xeon processor in a non SMP application would be as foolish as your unsupported statements.

Not that foolish as using telecom chips for desktop computing.

@iggy

Quote:

You have made an unsupported statement. References?

Raptor Engineering's own benchmarks.

Note that E3-1270 is just glorified sandy bridge i7 without iGPU.

Take a wild guess what happens when it gets against true 8-core instead 4c8t x86.

Quote:

"24 POWER8 cores in a relatively reasonably priced IBM POWER8 server can beat 36 Intel Haswell cores by a considerable margin " - Anandtech http://anandtech.com/show/9193/the-xeon-e78800-v3-review/17

And in most cases where Power8 shines you can outpeform it with x86 + XeonPhi/nVidia compute card.

Quote:

Do your research before you make silly comments.

Even better. Worked with both options.

Last edited by Rose on 06-Feb-2016 at 03:23 PM.
Last edited by Rose on 06-Feb-2016 at 03:18 PM.
Last edited by Rose on 06-Feb-2016 at 03:17 PM.

@bison

It is but it also looks misleading. For example the PPC has almost double the clock speed.

Then is says x86. Does it mean x86 32-bit only or x86-x64? PPC is obviously 64-bit and surely the x86 is also 64-bit. Now I use x86 as a generic term that covers all x86 architectures to 64-bit but it's confusing if other people do it!

Doesn't mention how many cores is in the x86 it beats. Sure I can look it up but if they are comparing figures I expect them to show the figures. Are they doing the homework or am I?

Futhermore it says best-performing x86 solution followed by best-performing solution which is also Intel. So is that 64-bit then?

Finally it says the total 24-core 3.52 Ghz PPC server is slower than a total 20 core 3.0 Ghz Intel server. Well that's not good! They've lost the race.

Yes I have used PPC to refer to Power. But I just found the article confusing! I don't know what those server CPUs are. It would help to give basic information missing that I have pointed out here.

@Rose

Quote:

Even better. Worked with both options.

I'm curious, what does that mean in English?

As to the benchmarks, interesting differences, but the only clear loser I see there is AMD (unless you count Intel's dramatic drop off as data size increases).

Then you want to throw in an asymmetric comparison by adding Nvida Cuda units?

Funny, those could be added to any cpu, and Power 8 has better facilities for the connection of coprocessors.

Oh and the comment after your's about 32 vs 64 bit? 64 bit PPCs don't care. Unlike Intels processors, you've been able to freely mix 32 and 64 bit applications on Power cpus since the G5 was introduced.

@pavlor

Quote:

Not that foolish as using telecom chips for desktop computing.

You'd have to discuss that with Aeon, I have a dirt cheap G5 for those applications.

And, btw, I also have a dual Xeon board, so I'm not anti-Intel.

Further, I'll probably be using MorphOS on X64 equipment while OS4 users are still waiting for 4.2.

But this IS a nice server chip.

Whether you want to admit it or not is purely a personal matter.

Last edited by iggy on 06-Feb-2016 at 08:00 PM.

@iggy

Quote:

Further, I'll probably be using MorphOS on X64 equipment while OS4 users are still waiting for 4.2.

I use OS4 on X64 equipment right now.

Quote:

Whether you want to admit it or not is purely a personal matter.

Sure, P5020 is nice SoC. Maybe little bit out-dated (USB 2.0, PCIe 2.0, SATA2) and expensive, but more than adequate for our needs. I hope to buy hardware with much worser SoC (Tabor), my remarks were not targeted against current hardware developement for our platform. I only pointed to performance comparison with mainstream desktop market.

@pavlor

I understand. Its all relative. The idea of using a Power 8 board for desktop use is about as silly as my owning a dual Xeon system (which really warms my den when its cold outside, but doesn't really perform that much better than the other machines I have).

It gets a little stupid. I have 32GB of memory in the Xeon system.
I could have installed 64GB.
I'm never going to need more than 16GB.

The P5020 X5000 is neat, but I'm going to wait for the P5040 model.
I'm not sure why, as I use MorphOS which isn't planned to support SMP on PPCs.
But I want it anyway.

Tabor, hmm, might have to draw the line there unless it can also do my laundry.

But I AM willing to spend bucks on my legacy Amiga hardware to upgrade it to a fraction of the power that the previously mentioned systems have (and I'm not kidding, I am).

No one said being part of the Amiga community was a sign of good mental hygiene.
But we ought to keep it fun.