backtop

Print 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.


RE: Yet...
By KernD on 2/27/2008 7:18:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
IBM is certainly taking the CPU crown, first with the Cell and now this


You think too highly of Cell, Cell is a mix of two things, a PowerPC processor(which can't beat a Core2 processor) and some parallel floating point units, just like say a GF8800, but with less power.

It's a good processor, but it can't beat a PC with a Core2 duo and GF8800 using CUDA.

This new processor does look interesting, but where are the numbers? and I mean number crunching performance number, or a database benchmark result?

This all looks good, but if say Intel wanted to compete, they could do like IBM and mod a Core2Quad, and put 5 on a large package with 2 MCH, or they could use there 80 core research chip as a base for the processing power.

Don't get me wrong, this is some good progress, but don't think an instant that they just left the competition in the dust. There is Intel and Sun in the server processor market and they were both competitive with IBM before yesterday, and will still be tomorrow.


RE: Yet...
By Sunner on 2/28/2008 4:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
Mainframes aren't made for number crunching, or for breaking world records in TPC-C or similar benchmarks.
Companies buy them for:
Enormous I/O capacity
Good batch job performance
RAS
Legacy compatibility(you can still run OS/360 apps on these)

If you're looking for pure performance, you're better off looking at a pSeries, Altix, Integrity Superdome, etc.


RE: Yet...
By KernD on 2/28/2008 9:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
You must have missed the Database benchmark part of my post. DB are all about I/O aren't they?

It's not like they haven't tested it themselves in DB test, they are saying it's better than anything else, yet don't give us any numbers to compare with other mainframes?

It's like saying I'm the fastest sprinter in the world and not giving your best time in the 100m dash.


RE: Yet...
By biohazard420420 on 3/13/2008 11:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
I say forget Crysis can that machine run Wolfenstein 3d at 20 fps and 640x480 I think not so it is worthless to me. I call shenanagins on the new IBM processor.


RE: Yet...
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2008 3:44:47 PM , Rating: 5
Ok seriously. It's getting old.


RE: Yet...
By rsasp on 2/27/2008 4:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Your wrong, with current QX9650 equip with 8800 ultra, it can run with average of 30fps at max setting. (30fps which is quite decent and playable)

but man, I wonder how much that IBM cpu is gonna cost, probably like $30k each.


RE: Yet...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/27/2008 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 3
Multiply that by 3 and add another 0


RE: Yet...
By Clauzii on 2/27/2008 7:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Thats for a whole system. I think he meant the CPU alone ;)


RE: Yet...
By Flunk on 2/27/2008 8:28:09 PM , Rating: 3
Quit it, this is just stupid now.


RE: Yet...
By Cullinaire on 2/27/2008 8:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
The message is clear, tired cliches have failed!

I'm not helping anything, am I?


Crazy stuff!
By sibbor on 2/27/2008 3:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, IBM is producing some really crazy stuff here. This makes my jaws drop to the ground. I'm a desktop user but still, I think this stuff is really impressive!

I wonder how this 20-core would stand against AMD Opterons, Intel Xeons and IBM's prior high-end CPUs...




RE: Crazy stuff!
By PB PM on 2/27/2008 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely, out producing them by a good margin.


RE: Crazy stuff!
By FITCamaro on 2/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Crazy stuff!
By oab on 2/27/2008 3:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they can license Transmetas "code morphing" for that


RE: Crazy stuff!
By Benji XVI on 2/27/2008 4:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If its anything like the Cell when it was first produced, yields will be terrible which drives the cost of the processor up tremendously.


I'd be fascinated to know how it compares. One thing to note is that this is generally speaking more similar to IBM's previous high-end processor implementations... according to wikipedia the z6 processors used here are very similar to Power6 in most ways (execution units etc), though rather different in others (interconnects, SMP approach).

Anyway, the Cell is not the best point of comparison as it is not a direct evolution of IBM's marchitecture and packaging for high-end servers as this is. I believe its being a symmetrical design, MUCH unlike the Cell, would also help stave off some of the manufacturing inefficiencies the Cell encountered early on -- and IBM has also has more experience with its 65nm process by now.

Also bear in mind these chips are more comparable to Itanium than Intel's consumer processors (or Xeon). Each of those quad cores has 991 million transistors; the Storage Control processors, 1.6 billion. That's 8.2 billion transistors per package - sweet.


RE: Crazy stuff!
By psychobriggsy on 2/27/2008 5:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
900 million transistors ... that's a die shrink away from being in the same die area as any other high end CPU. Two die shrinks away from having a variant mass produced in the PS4 (in actuality I think the PS4 will use a single-die quad-Cell at 6GHz in 3.5 years time actually, but the PPUs could be more like one of these cores than Cell's PPU).

What a beast of a processor. Impressive.


RE: Crazy stuff!
By EclipsedAurora on 2/27/2008 10:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's silly to direct compare Cell and Z series processor. Cell is belongs to another IBM blade server product line which intended for scienfic/defence/medical/research modeling purpose. While this Z series is IBM's flapship mainframe for commercial application as data server/trading server for most banks and finance firm.

Z series usually work by itself in a single unit while Cell blade server is usually hooked up together in nodes config to serve as super-computer purpose.


RE: Crazy stuff!
By random git on 2/27/2008 4:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even with just software emulation of x86, this might give Intel and/or AMD a run for their money

Hahaha nice. One of the funnier thing's I've read today.

Seriously though software emulation gives a massive performance hit and single threaded performance won't benefit from all those cores.


RE: Crazy stuff!
By EclipsedAurora on 2/27/2008 10:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well. As the flagship mainframe server product line from IBM, Z series mainframes are never talking abt yield. Client who buy those mainframe only invest on the best in the planet only.

I can tell u the monthly service cost of a typical IBM z unit is enough for u to buy a new Honda Jazz/Mazda 2/Toyota Yaris already, while a typical Z unit cost most than even the most expensive Porsche/Ferrari/Mercedes supercar!


RE: Crazy stuff!
By EclipsedAurora on 2/27/2008 10:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, who cares silly x86?

Man! Z series is IBM's flagship mainframe! Even best x86 Xeon grade server is just an ant compare with this real god!


Picture question
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2008 3:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
If there's 5 dies and a service processor thingy per processor, then why are there 7 black die looking things on the first and third pics showing the processor? Unless all the cache is kept in a separate location away from the physical processing cores for heat distribution. I'm just wondering what each block on the processor is.




RE: Picture question
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/27/2008 3:32:07 PM , Rating: 5
There are 5 quad-core die (dice? dies?), and then two more service processors. The service processors handle the inter-core communication and add the L3 cache (24MB L3 each).


RE: Picture question
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2008 3:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
OK.

The problem is your article only mentions a single service processor per processor. If there are two per processor, then you need to update the article.


RE: Picture question
By FITCamaro on 2/27/2008 3:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
Oh. Nevermind. I missed this sentence.

quote:
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.


RE: Picture question
By Capsaicin on 2/27/2008 3:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
From answers.com:

quote:

die

An unpackaged, bare chip. A die is the formal term for the square of silicon containing an integrated circuit. Die is singular, and dice is plural. The terms die and chip are often used synonymously.


RE: Picture question
By imperator3733 on 2/27/2008 5:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
I've generally seen and use dies as the plural.


RE: Picture question
By DASQ on 2/27/2008 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
Think "die", like die casting.


Hello, reality check geeks!!
By ChipDude on 2/27/2008 5:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
Geeks how about some prospective?

Don't let IBM FUD pull common sense over your eyes.

0) IBM sells these in the hundreds to possible tens of thousands for the cheapest and simplest configuration
1) These things sell in 7 and 9 figure priced systems.
2) These are sold with lots of software and service bundles that run 6-7 figure yearly contracts with huge profit margins.

Take away for those that are asking and comparing to cell, AMD, or INTEL you have to put this in prospective.
Volumes are orders of magnitude lower then the other CPUs being mentioned. Thus yield, performance and how you manufacturing are completely different. This is like comparing a formula 1 car to your honda accord. Any comparison is meaningless.

The business is completely different. IBM makes all the money on service and software. Take can suck losses, huge losses on the hardware side. I expect they are, given the low volumes and inablity to amortize fab, wafers on this hardware.




By smilingcrow on 2/27/2008 5:52:55 PM , Rating: 1
Right on (Chip) Dude.


By steve230633 on 2/27/2008 6:44:58 PM , Rating: 3
I work in the mainframe division at IBM. Mainframe system configurations that cost under 6 figures don't exist.

Enterprise level software has tremendously high profit margins so that's where most of the money is made, but the software is purchased separately and not always from IBM. We compete with other companies but we do very well :)

The chips you see on that MCM (multichip module) in the article's picture aren't all used for work. Some are used to just mirror the instructions running on other chips in case one fails. Mainframes are designed for tremendous redundancy. As a simple example, it doesn't even matter if you took a hammer and smashed one of the memory modules or cpu chips. The system will continue running as if nothing happened.

The top end system requires a 31 Kilowatt power supply. Each system has multiple power supplies as well as backup batteries...again for redundancy.


This is nothin'
By Urkis on 2/27/2008 7:41:30 PM , Rating: 4
I've already got a Z80-based system crunchin' numbers in the attic...




throw your pc away
By semo on 2/27/2008 6:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"

if someone did actually say that, then they might have been on to something.




Cha Chin$
By rupaniii on 2/27/2008 8:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think Google is shelling out money NOW.
This will let them do full blown web traffic sumulations and other craziness.
Heck, they could really use it to power their Google Mobile services, as mobile phones are going to what, DOUBLE the internet traffic in 3 years?




Getting tired
By KinEnriquez on 2/27/2008 9:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Comments about whether a new system (be it Z10, Cray or whathaveyou) will run Crysis is getting a bit tired. Give it a rest, will you?




By EclipsedAurora on 2/27/2008 10:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Where entry price is talking abt million US dollars, and service price at hundred thousand dollars per month! Therefore only world class enterprise and government agency can afford this kind of machine.

The Z processor is a family spin off from remarkable POWER line processor which includes the Cell-BE processor used in PS3 and Xenon using in 360. But the Z processor has different ISA which makes her to remain backward compatible to early 1960s IBM System360 series mainframe.




Is it fast-food metaphore time yet?
By Joz on 2/28/2008 1:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
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.
Hi, ya, can I have the 4 regular roast beef for $5 please?

and can you add a couple mill$ to my bill?




how many cores overall ?
By boro on 2/28/2008 2:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Are there 64 CPU's with 20 cores each (so 1280 cores), or 64 quad-cores, but then how are they divided in dies of 5 quad-cores ?




More details.
By anthrax on 3/13/2008 4:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Here are the details of the z6 CPU.

http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal/IBM-z6-mainfra...

Here aredetails of the z10 Enterprise Class Server these things fit into..

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpieces/abstracts/sg...




cores
By Dragon3 on 3/19/2008 8:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
Acutally, there are 5 quad-cores on each MCM (Multi-Chip Module), and 4 MCMs in a z10 machine, giving 80 cores in total. Of those, 64 can be configured by customer, others are used for I/O and spares.




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki