chic - re: "With 40 more processors and a price tag hundreds of thousands of dollars more, it should provide more perfomance."
Well, for starters, the S80 configuration weighed in at $7,156,910.00 against the UE10000 at $7,657,324.00 - which is indeed "hundreds of thousands more" - except that in the more important cost per transaction, the UE10000 showed $48.81 while the S80 was at $52.70. In other words, the S80 costs more to get the same job done, which is not what your post implies. The UE10000 costs more because it does more. How much would a UE10000 cost which can do the same 135,815 transactions as the S80? Probably "Hundreds of thousands less" - $6,629,483.02 or $527,426.98 less than the S80.
I'm afraid the "number of processors" argument will not wash - running single box performance with 64 processors is a more difficult challenge than the same feat with 24, and speaks well for the scalability when (or IF, in concession to your thoughts on SPARC III) faster processors are available.
As you know, I'm not an unabashed SUNW supporter - but this is a respectable result, takes the single-box crown convincingly, and at a cost per transaction which is half of the last result. On to the next round... |
