backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by Dragon3.. on Mar 19 at 8:01 AM

Each of these three IBM z10 processor contains twenty cores, 60MB of L2 and 48MB of L3 cache  (Source: IBM)

Each z10 processor features five processor die, each die contains four physical cores  (Source: IBM)
IBM says its z10 mainframe consumes 85% less power and needs 85% less floorspace than 1,500 x86 processors that can't even keep up

IBM announced yesterday its new System z10 mainframe computer, complete with its next-generation z10 processor. IBM says the z10 is designed from the ground up to dramatically increase data center efficiency and reduce power and floor space requirements as well as cooling costs.

The new z10 is equal to nearly 1,500 x86 servers in performance and requires up to 85% less power and requires up to 85% less floor space. IBM also says that the system allows the consolidation of x86 software license at up to a 30:1 ratio.

The z10 utilizes 64 purpose-built quad-core processors for performance and is scalable enough to support hundreds to hundreds of thousands of users according to IBM. The server will support a wide range of workloads including Linux, XML, Java, WebSphere and IBM is working with Sun to bring Solaris to the z10.

IBM describes that 991 million transistor processor as a four-core processor with 3MB of L2 cache per core.  The company claims the chip can operate in excess of 4.4 GHz.  A separate, dedicated "service" processor adds 24MB of L3 cache, sharable among all the processor cores. 

The highest-end z10 processors use five quad-core die packages and two service cores; that's 20 cores at 4.4 GHz, 60 MB of L2 cache and 48 MB of shared L3 cache on a single processor.

IBM was in the news in early February 2008 for proposing a single supercomputer capable of hosting the entire Internet as a web application. With the z10, IBM's ambitious plan might not be that far of a pipe dream.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Yet...
By Eomer of Aldburg on 2/27/2008 3:20:09 PM , Rating: 1
Crysis still can't be maxed out at a decent framerate :D




RE: Yet...
By troublesome08 on 2/27/2008 3:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL

I wonder how much these bad boys are gonna sell for?


RE: Yet...
By oab on 2/27/2008 3:41:57 PM , Rating: 5
If you need to ask, you can't afford one.


RE: Yet...
By Benji XVI on 2/27/2008 3:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
I read elsewhere that prices start at $1 million.


RE: Yet...
By Benji XVI on 2/27/2008 3:59:53 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Yet...
By matriarch wolf on 2/27/2008 4:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
I have to wonder if they partnered with AMD when developing this chip since they had the most viable dual core for the longest time. Would be interesting to see more detail on the developement of it.


RE: Yet...
By eye smite on 2/27/2008 4:14:57 PM , Rating: 5
I wonder the same thing. It's an interesting approach. Would love to see how well it cranks out folding@home.


RE: Yet...
By Benji XVI on 2/27/2008 4:30:51 PM , Rating: 5
The z6 processor used here is essentially a Power6 processor that has been significantly altered for mainframe use, adding complex instructions etc. The Power6 processor is the evolution of Power5 and was particularly aimed at converging all IBM's server lines onto a unified microarchitecture, as far as possible.

It is in other words a processor that shares almost nothing with AMD's areas of expertise. IBM's multicore experience also dwarfs AMD's: Power5, released in 2004, used dual core chips in a package highly reminiscent of the one shown above, here's a pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Power5.jpg

My impression of AMD's involvement with IBM in this arena is that AMD has benefitted from IBM's multicore & packaging prowess, not the other way round. Anyone care to correct me?


RE: Yet...
By AgentPromo on 2/27/2008 4:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.news.com/AMD%2C-IBM-extend-chip-develop...

There are a variety of things that they share, but it definitely looks like AMD is paying to take advantage of IBM's engineering expertise in the manufacturing and FAB areas of the processor world.

I also seem to remember some things a while ago where AMD licensed its L1 cache technology to IBM in exchange for some IBM work on 64 bit registers. Could be wrong though.

It would make for an interesting world if IBM would ever absorb AMD. Could see a more dynamic processor world where Sony, IBM and Intel were all competing with each other on more equal footing rather than the "kinda-david AMD" vs. Goliath Intel. Then, and maybe only then, would we see a processor that can reasonably run Crysis ;)


RE: Yet...
By ZeroGuardian on 2/27/2008 5:10:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It would make for an interesting world if IBM would ever absorb AMD. Could see a more dynamic processor world where Sony, IBM and Intel were all competing with each other on more equal footing rather than the "kinda-david AMD" vs. Goliath Intel.


Why did you add Sony to the list? They don't make processors. If you are referring to the Cell Processor that is an IBM design that was aided by Sony funding. Hell Sony just sold their last FAB facility for Cell Processors to Toshiba.

At this point though I agree. I think an IBM-AMD merger would be very good for the entire industry. Intel is an awesome CPU manufacturer but it seriously needs better competition than what AMD is currently offering.


RE: Yet...
By cane on 2/28/2008 4:13:26 AM , Rating: 2
Why would IBM ever consider absorbing AMD? They sold their own PC division to Lenovo 3 years ago... What makes anyone think they would be more successful this time around?

They started the whole PC industry, they have had their chance. I think they are happy with what their doing, namely building the most powerful super computers in the world.


RE: Yet...
By bunnyfubbles on 2/28/2008 7:35:22 AM , Rating: 4
PC =! CPU

there's a HUGE difference


RE: Yet...
By bunnyfubbles on 2/28/2008 7:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
Except that Crysis isn't CPU limited... :P


RE: Yet...
By paydirt on 2/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yet...
By MrPoletski on 3/15/2008 3:04:12 AM , Rating: 2
Right now there is no GFX card that will do decent physics (though the 8xxx range will get support soon). Even then, the GFX card is not able to do multiple dependant physics operations. All you will get from physics acceleration on current GPU's is more individual non-static objects that don't interact with other non-static objects.

Physx hardware is capable of this, I'd be suprsed if Crysis didn't support that, especially as Nvidia now own physx and give crysis a lot of money for the 'the way it's meant to be played' (incredibly irritating) video when the game loads.


RE: Yet...
By Goty on 2/27/2008 4:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't IBM a part-owner/developer of HT? I wouldn't be surprised if that was the interconnect being used here.


RE: Yet...
By Ronin on 2/27/2008 4:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
The z10 packages are in the $1,000,000 range, and obviously are not intended for anything other than large corporation use. I'm pretty sure running any type of Windows OS on them would prove disastrous. :)


RE: Yet...
By hiscross on 2/27/2008 8:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
We have Linux running on IBM zOS where I work. It's works, but is expensive requiring a host of mainframe experts to setup and maintain. IBM has those experts at $250 per hour. Expect them to a regular staff members so as long as you run their stuff. No Microsoft allowed, pure Linux (and maybe AIX). Oh you pay by the processor as well. So your cost includes %1M+ machine, full time staff of IBMers, and licensing per processor core. Make them happy and rich. Go Big Blue.


RE: Yet...
By mmntech on 2/27/2008 3:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe with 20 8800GTXs in super-hyper SLI mode. We just might hit 60fps at 1024x768, if we overclock. lol

IBM is certainly taking the CPU crown, first with the Cell and now this. I suspect it will be some time before consumers feel the benefits of the technology. I wonder if this factors into IBM's plans to have one computer run the internet.