> I'm not sure that I follow your argument.  The T1000's architecture
> favors workloads that have many parallel tasks that involve data
> throughput.  The Xenon is going to have a better showing for straight
> number-crunching work.  If your webserver benchmark is trying to measure
> the throughput for a few clients that perform simple tasks, then I can
> understand why you might expect the Xenon to do better.  However, if
> you're trying to measure a workload that has many clients and measures
> in ops/sec, the T1000 may well do better.

This is exactly why I created this benchmark. On the T1000 it uses 32 threads 
to encrypt 
the file in parallel - exactly the situation this machine is supposed to shine 
in. From 
the performance counters I can tell that the CPU is maxed, for a total of close 
to 8 
billion operations per second, so that there is almost no internal stalling.
My point was that even in this situation the UltraSPARC T1 lags considerably 
behind the 
quad-core Xeon.

--Elad
_______________________________________________
perf-discuss mailing list
perf-discuss@opensolaris.org

Reply via email to