IBM releases 4.7 GHz Processor

[Mentat]

----------------
The Power6 dual-core processor offers a clock speed of 4.7GHz along with a total of 8MB of L2 cache, which is four times as large as the cache offered with Power5, and an internal bandwidth of 300 gigabytes per second.
----------------

yes please, let me have one. lol

link

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

As a lifer, my post count is very important. I'm afraid to inform you that this is placed in the wrong forum, which increases my post count by 1.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Mentat
----------------
The Power6 dual-core processor offers a clock speed of 4.7GHz along with a total of 8MB of L2 cache, which is four times as large as the cache offered with Power5, and an internal bandwidth of 300 gigabytes per second.
----------------

yes please, let me have one. lol

link

sorry, it won't run wind0ze

 

[Matthias99]

IIRC, POWER-architecture chips are more RISC-like and generally do significantly less work per clock than an x86 CPU. So this would not be as fast as an Intel Core 2 chip at 4.7Ghz for most things.

And, yes, it should probably be in the CPU forum.

 

[PricklyPete]

Still impressive. I'd like them to throw a couple of those in my companies iSeries DB server.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
As a lifer, my post count is very important. I'm afraid to inform you that this is placed in the wrong forum, which increases my post count by 1.

hahahaha, where does it go then?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Still impressive. I'd like them to throw a couple of those in my companies iSeries DB server.

And I'm sure they'd be more than happy to do so in exchange for a few piles of money

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
As a lifer, my post count is very important. I'm afraid to inform you that this is placed in the wrong forum, which increases my post count by 1.

I can agree to both points!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mentat

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
As a lifer, my post count is very important. I'm afraid to inform you that this is placed in the wrong forum, which increases my post count by 1.

hahahaha, where does it go then?

General hardware or CPU/Processors... personally, i don't mind you posting this here

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
IIRC, POWER-architecture chips are more RISC-like and generally do significantly less work per clock than an x86 CPU. So this would not be as fast as an Intel Core 2 chip at 4.7Ghz for most things.

And, yes, it should probably be in the CPU forum.

hmmm...I thought it was the opposite...powerPC does MORE per clock cycle, hence why Mac's have often been slower (but not slower) then their x86 cousins.

 

[Chadder007]

Isn't this the processor that also counts to 9 instead of reading in 1s and 0s?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mentat

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
As a lifer, my post count is very important. I'm afraid to inform you that this is placed in the wrong forum, which increases my post count by 1.

hahahaha, where does it go then?

General hardware or CPU/Processors... personally, i don't mind you posting this here

same here, that cpu is gonna r0x0r some DB servers s0x0rs

 

[AdamK47]

The more MHz the better the processor, right? RIGHT?!?!?!

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Isn't this the processor that also counts to 9 instead of reading in 1s and 0s?

Well, I was close. It counts from 0-9 which is 10 numbers.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6124451.html

 

[tfinch2]

Higher clock speed does not always equal better performance.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Higher clock speed does not always equal better performance.

You mean if I set up my digital clock to run on 120Hz instead of 60Hz, I won't get twice as much work done in a day?

 

[destrekor]

it not being x86 hurts their chances of mass sales since their core consumer electronics customer, Apple, has switched to x86. Thus, the market share potential has been severely crippled on that fact alone. The recent trend of servers is towards x86 it seems, as well.
plus, base10 math? Won't developers have to code applications to support that method of calculation.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
As a lifer, my post count is very important. I'm afraid to inform you that this is placed in the wrong forum, which increases my post count by 1.

10/10 :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: destrekor
it not being x86 hurts their chances of mass sales since their core consumer electronics customer, Apple, has switched to x86. Thus, the market share potential has been severely crippled on that fact alone. The recent trend of servers is towards x86 it seems, as well.
plus, base10 math? Won't developers have to code applications to support that method of calculation.

umm... like every Power series chip, this is for big iron computers, not desktops. you're thinking PowerPC.

 

[toekramp]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
As a lifer, my post count is very important. I'm afraid to inform you that this is placed in the wrong forum, which increases my post count by 1.

i love this post.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
As a lifer, my post count is very important. I'm afraid to inform you that this is placed in the wrong forum, which increases my post count by 1.

I'm not a lifer, but I'll have post count ++ anyway.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Higher clock speed does not always equal better performance.

However in this case it does.

 

[Sphexi]

So is that 4.7 per core, or 4.7 with both cores? Wouldn't that be similar to a C2D that runs about 2.35 per core?

As impressive as the numbers sound, until they put up benchmarks of it running against competing products, doesn't mean much.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Wow nice ...
The power5's with AIX make for some really nice DB servers, I can only imagine what kind of a monster you'd be able to get with a couple dozen Power6 CPUS ..... oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


There must be something wrong with me. I think I am attracted to a CPU.


EDIT:
Link here
There is a link to a pdf with some Oracle 11 benchmarks on the register.

You won't see benchmarks like quake or far cry or any games or anything ....

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Sphexi
So is that 4.7 per core, or 4.7 with both cores? Wouldn't that be similar to a C2D that runs about 2.35 per core?

As impressive as the numbers sound, until they put up benchmarks of it running against competing products, doesn't mean much.

I'm not understanding the per core or total statement. It's not like each core is a slower number and they combine it. It's like a hyper-threaded P4... each core runs threads on its own at the stated speed, just they run things together, splitting the workload.

unless... I may not be understanding your statement.

edit:
I think RichUK explains it a bit better in the post below this one. The latency of assorted caches may slow down communication of the work from order and execution, but the execution of code will run at the 4.7ghz, regardless of which core it is ran on; whether or not code is then processed after executed at the same speed is different, but always has been. The execution clockspeed is never the same speed of how fast things are ferried between stages, however things like the front side bus tend to work in perfect fractions of the clockspeed.
something like that. I don't know the exact terms and how to properly explain the process/stages of a CPU, however I do understand it to a basic degree in my head. How well I communicate my thoughts has always been a completely different story.