Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!tcela!tak
From: tak@tcela.COM (Michael Takayama)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: 4D/35 vs. 4D/3xx
Message-ID: <113@tcela.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 91 01:46:40 GMT
Lines: 56

jeremy@perf2.asd.sgi.com responds:

>In article <112@tcela.COM>, tak@tcela.COM (Michael Takayama) writes:
>> Looking through the latest UNIX Review (Jan 91), I noted that the 4D/340VGX
>> is SPECmarked at 19.5 while the new 4D/35 is SPECmarked at 23 (pgs. 75 and
>> 110, respectively).
>> 
>> OK, all you folks at SGI in ASD and ESD, given the price differential between
>> the 4D/35 and 4D/3xx workstations, what is the *REAL* difference in compute
>> performance (not graphics - it's pretty much a given that GTX and VGX 
>> performance far exceed TG performance) between these systems (esp. 4D/35S 
>> and 4D/310S)? 
>> 
>
>The 4D/340 has 4 processors.  The 19.5 mark is for a single processor only.
>I believe that the throughput number is 67.something, or 4 @ 16.something.

No, no, no!  This is not what I (and many others) am interested in!  I guess
that I have to be MORE SPECIFIC:

In the heavyweight division, we have the new 4D/310S Power Center IRIS compute 
server from ASD in a big box with lots of slots for peripherals and heavy-duty
power consumption.  

In the welterweight division, we have the new 4D/35S Personal IRIS compute
server from ESD in a small box with few slots for peripherals and relatively
low power consumption.
  
These are both single-processor systems (apparently the SAME processor).
If the 19.5 SPECmark is indeed for the single-processor system (i.e. 4D/310S),
then it is significantly lower than the SPECmark of 23 for the 4D/35S.  This 
is remarkable given that a 4D/35S configuration is cheaper than an equivalent 
4D/310S configuration.  

The REAL question is:

Is there any reason to purchase a 4D/310S vs. a 4D/35S from a compute 
performance standpoint? 

Please leave out arguments of graphics, expandibility, upgrades, etc.
 
Incidentally, the price/performance ratio is just as bad for the 4D/320S 
dual-processor systems.  With the 4D/340S (quad-processor), we might begin 
to reach parity; with the 4D/380S (oct-processor), we might come up to
parity plus maybe a bit more.  With quantity discounts, though, a farm of 
4D/35S's could be a better solution than ANY multi-processor IRIS in compute
server configurations.  How do you justify 4D/3xxS compute servers vs. 4D/35S 
compute servers given the price/performance discrepancies? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Takayama                                        email:  tak@tce.com
Technical Support Manager
TDI America

"The 4D/35S or the 4D/310S?  Well, which keeps better time - Timex or Rolex?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------