comp p8 vs x86
DESCRIPTION
IBM P8TRANSCRIPT
Competitive ComparisonsPOWER8 versus Intel x86
Contents
• x86 Vendor Claims• IBM Response
2
x86 Vendor Claims – how to respond
3
X86 Vendor Sales Tactics
IBM Response / Reality
x86 systems have leadership performance versus POWER8 systems
x86 Vendors compare 4-socket 60 core x86 servers to the Power S824 2 socket 24 core class boxes, to claim better system performance. This is SYSTEM performance and not core performance, which translates to expensive SW licensing costs. The Scale Out POWER8 systems are scale out solutions and should credibly be compared to 2-socket x86 E5-26xx class servers, with laser focus on per core performance, as that is where the software licensing charges accumulate.
POWER8 cores are 2x the performance over x86 cores across a wide range of benchmarks.
PowerVM enables higher sustained utilization on Power Systems and even fewer cores, which we guarantee on POWER8 SCO Systems.
See more detail here.
x86 Systems have better price performance versus POWER8 systems
Power systems are actually TCA price-performance advantaged versus x86 systems, particularly when we drive the system utilization levels up with PowerVM enabling consolidation.
Linux on Power versus Linux on X86 comparisons should be with the 822L and 812L. The 824L contains GPUs (and cost) for specific functionality that is not contained in standard x86 configurations.
If database or ISV software costs are included the Power Scale-Out systems can show even more dramatic savings over x86 systems.
See more detail here.
x86 systems have equal RAS to IBM Power systems
IBM Power systems have a long history of unmatched Enterprise-class RAS capabilities. X86 systems require expensive cluster software (like RAC) to achieve even minimal RAS.
See more detail here.
IBM technology is 3 years behind Intel technology in silicon manufacturing
IBM and Intel are delivering 22nm technology. What is important is that IBM core performance improves every generation and Intel performance degrades core to core.
See more detail here.
Oracle SW is cheaper on x86 than on Power due to the 0.5 multiplier on x86 versus 1.0 on the Power Solution.
PowerVM is approved for sub-capacity licensing, allowing only the cores that are being utilized by the Oracle DB to require licenses; with x86/VMWare solutions, the customer must license every core for both DB and RAC from the time of purchase. See more detail here.
POWER8 processor is Purpose Built – resulting in premium performance over Intel Xeon
Sandy Bridge EP
E5-26xx
Ivy Bridge EP
E5-26xx v2
Haswell EP
E5-26xx v3
Ivy Bridge EX
E7-88xx v2POWER 7+ POWER8
Clock rates 1.8–3.6GHz 1.7-3.7GHz 1.7-3.7GHz 1.9-3.4 GHz 3.1-4.4 GHz 3.0-4.15 GHz
SMT options 1,2* 1, 2* 1, 2* 1, 2* 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 4, 8
Cores per socket 8 12 18 15 8 12
Max Threads / sock 16 24 36 30 32 96
Max L1 Cache 32KB 32KB* 32KB* 32KB* 32KB 64KB
Max L2 Cache 256 KB 256 KB 256 KB 256 KB 256 KB 512 KB
Max L3 Cache 20 MB 30 MB 45 MB 37.5 MB 80 MB 96 MB
Max L4 Cache 0 0 0 0 0 128 MB
Memory Bandwidth 31.4-51.2 GB/s 42.6-59.7 GB/s 51.2-68.3 GB/s68-85**
GB/s100 – 180 GB/sec
230 - 410 GB/sec
* Intel calls this Hyper-Threading Technology (No HT and with HT)
Return to x86 Tactics
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims - Performance
x86 CLAIM:
• x86 systems have leadership performance versus POWER8 systems
IBM RESPONSE:
• x86 Vendors compare 4-socket 60 core x86 servers to the Power S824 2 socket 24 core class boxes, to claim better system performance. This is SYSTEM performance and not core performance, which translates to expensive SW licensing costs. The Scale Out POWER8 systems are scale out solutions and should credibly be compared to 2-socket x86 E5-26xx class servers, with laser focus on per core performance, as that is where the software licensing charges accumulate.
• POWER8 cores are 2x the performance over x86 cores across a wide range of benchmarks.
• PowerVM enables higher sustained utilization on Power Systems and even fewer cores, which we guarantee on POWER8 SCO Systems.
• Published Benchmarks – ALL data is PUBLISHED
x86
“Haswell”
IBM
POWER S824
POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3
(except where noted)
POWER8
@ 3.5 GHz
# Cores 36 24
SAP 2-Tier 16500 21212 1.9
SPECint_rate2006 1400 1750 1.8
SPECfp_rate2006 942 1370 2.1
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS) 195119 361293 2.7
SPECjEnterprise201011260
(24-core E5-2697 v2)
22543 2.0
Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll1017639
(24-core E5-2697 v2)
1090909(12-core)
2.1
Siebel CRM Release 8.1.1.4 10000
(16-core E5-2690)
50000(6-core)
13.3
Performance comparison – POWER8 vs. x86 E5IBM POWER8 core and system performance is leadership versus the x86 Xeon E5-2699 v3
1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014
2) Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
3) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ 4) SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results 5) SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ 6) Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html7) Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
• Industry Standard Benchmarks – • All Intel performance numbers are IBM internal projections and publishes where available• IBM S824 data is published/projected
x86
E5
IBM
Power S824POWER8 vs. x86 Core Performance Ratio
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3
Power 8 @ 3.5 GHz
P8 Util: 100%
x86 Util: 100%
P8 Util: 65%
x86 Util: 40%
P8 Util: 65%
x86 Util: 20%
# Cores 36 24 Benchmark Utilization
Utilization with virtualized x86
Utilization without virtualized x86
OLTP 2400 3585 2.2 3.6 7.2
ERP SAP 2-Tier 16500 21212 1.9 3.2 6.3
SPECjbb2013 (max-jOPS) 195119 361293 2.7 4.5 9.0
SPECint_rate 1430 1750 1.8 2.9 5.9
SPECfp_rate 965 1370 2.1 3.4 6.8
SPECjEnterprise2010 16500 22543 2.0 3.3 6.5
Published Projected
LEGEND:
** Do not leave behind with client, presentation use only**** Do not leave behind with client, presentation use only**
Core Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs. x86IBM POWER8 core performance is up to 9.0x the best x86 Xeon E5 performance (typical customer utilization)
1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014
2) Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
3) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ 4) SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results 5) SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ 6) Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html7) Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs x86
… Power 8 x86 Comparison
System S824 4s x86
# Cores 24 60
SpecINT 2006 Rate 1750 2370 x86 35% faster
SpecFP 2006 Rate 1370 1740 x86 27% faster
SPEC jbb2013 max JOPS 361,293 199,752 Power 80% faster
SAP S&D 2 tier (users) 21,212 25,000 x86 18% better
Power 8 x86 Comparison
System S824 2s x86
# Cores 24 36
SpecINT 2006 Rate 1750 1400 Power 25% faster
SpecFP 2006 Rate 1370 942 Power 27% faster
SPEC jbb2013 max JOPS 361,293 190,674 Power 89% faster
SAP S&D 2 tier (users) 21,212 16,000 Power 33% faster
POWER8 is the Performance leader in the Scale Out Spacewith 2/3 of the cores with up to 89% better
at the system level performance and up
to 2.7x better per core performance
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Comparing 4-socket x86 E7 (60
cores) vs S824 POWER8 (24 cores)
True Scale Out Comparison
(1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014(2) IBM System x3850 X6 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors/ 60 cores/ 120 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 4890 v2; 2.80 GHz, 1024 GB memory; 25,000 SD benchmark users, running Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition and DB2 10; Certification # 2014004. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark .(3) IBM System x 3650 M5, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,000 SD benchmark users, running Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition and DB2 10; Certification # 2014030. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark. (4) SPECjbb2013 results are valid as of 10/15/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 15, 2014.(5) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 10/2/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 6, 2014.
Return to x86 Tactics
}}
Typical deceptive x86 positioning
against Power
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – Price-Performance
x86 CLAIM:
• x86 systems have leadership price-performance versus POWER8 systems
IBM RESPONSE:
• Power systems are actually TCA price-performance advantaged versus x86 systems, particularly when we drive the system utilization levels up with PowerVM enabling consolidation.
• Linux on Power versus Linux on X86 comparisons should be with the 822L and 812L. The 824L contains GPUs (and cost) for specific functionality that is not contained in standard x86 configurations.
• If database or ISV software costs are included the Power Scale-Out systems can show even more dramatic savings over x86 systems.
Scale-Out Price Performance Comparison – POWER8 vs x86…
Power 8 X86 2-socket Advantage
SpecFP 2006 Rate 1130 916 Power 23% faster
System HW Price $37,305 $21,200 x86 43% better
Price/Performance 33 ppf 24 ppf x86 28% better
This price is an S824L which has 2 GPUs – not in
the Intel box!!!!
A more comparable model would be the S822L and using SPECfp_rate as opposed to SPECfp_base
Power 8 – S822L X86 2-socket Advantage
SpecFP 2006 Rate 1252 942 Power 33% faster
System HW Price $26,005 $21,200 x86 19% better
Price/Performance 21 ppf 23 ppf Power 10% better
This is SPECfp_rate2006 base – NOTE: the performance
compares were done with SPECfp_rate2006
POWER8 has BETTER Price-
Performance when a valid
comparison is made.
(1) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 10/2/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ All IBM benchmark results will be submitted to spec.org on October 6, 2014.(2) Pricing is based on Lenovo claims and IBM econfig
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims - RAS
…..….…..
x86 CLAIM:
• x86 systems have equal RAS to IBM Power systems
IBM RESPONSE:
• IBM Power systems have a long history of unmatched Enterprise-class RAS capabilities. X86 systems require expensive cluster software (like RAC) to achieve even minimal RAS.
Return to x86 Tactics
Power RAS Involves More Than Just the Processor
Return to x86 Tactics
IBM develops, tests, integrates the entire stack for RAS► I/O drawers / memory management unit
► Processors and all chips in CEC
► Hypervisor (PowerVM) and VIOS
► Device drivers, PCI adapters
► Operating system (AIX, System i, Linux)
► Middleware and Clustering software
12 This document is for IBM and IBM Business Partner use only. It is not intended for client distribution
Firmware
Intel Processor RAS
What isMissing?
Memory
Power Stack - Integrated RAS
x86CPU
POWERCPU
Firmware
AIX, IBM i, Linux
I/ODrawer
Drivers
Memory
IBM Middleware
PowerHA
LPARs / Workloads
PowerVM RA
S
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – Technology
x86 CLAIM:
• IBM technology is 3 years behind Intel technology in silicon manufacturing
IBM RESPONSE:
• IBM and Intel are delivering 22nm technology. What is important is that IBM core performance improves every generation and Intel performance degrades core to core.
POWER8 processor is Purpose Built – resulting in premium performance over Intel Xeon
Sandy Bridge EP
E5-26xx
Ivy Bridge EP
E5-26xx v2
Haswell EP
E5-26xx v3
Ivy Bridge EX
E7-88xx v2POWER 7+ POWER8
Clock rates 1.8–3.6GHz 1.7-3.7GHz 1.7-3.7GHz 1.9-3.4 GHz 3.1-4.4 GHz 3.0-4.15 GHz
SMT options 1,2* 1, 2* 1, 2* 1, 2* 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 4, 8
Cores per socket 8 12 18 15 8 12
Max Threads / sock 16 24 36 30 32 96
Max L1 Cache 32KB 32KB* 32KB* 32KB* 32KB 64KB
Max L2 Cache 256 KB 256 KB 256 KB 256 KB 256 KB 512 KB
Max L3 Cache 20 MB 30 MB 45 MB 37.5 MB 80 MB 96 MB
Max L4 Cache 0 0 0 0 0 128 MB
Memory Bandwidth 31.4-51.2 GB/s 42.6-59.7 GB/s 51.2-68.3 GB/s68-85**
GB/s100 – 180 GB/sec
230 - 410 GB/sec
* Intel calls this Hyper-Threading Technology (No HT and with HT)
Return to x86 Tactics
• Infrastructure Software Price-performance has been REDUCED on Intel servers– Assumes flat system pricing
Software Licensing has increased by 1.5x– 12 cores versus 8 cores OR 18 versus 12
Performance has not increased proportionally to the chip core count resulting in higher software costs
– x86 publishes on 2-socket systems
POWER8 moves forwards while Xeon moves backwards IBM POWER systems continue to deliver improved system performance and more value per SW $ spent
x86
“Sandy Bridge”
x86
“Ivy Bridge”
x86
“Haswell”
System
Performance Ratio
POWER7+ POWER8 System
Performance Ratio
2-socket
E5-2690
2-socket
E5-2697v2
2-socket
E5-2699v3
SNB to
IVB
IVB to
HAS
2-socket POWER7+
2-socket POWER8
POWER7+ to POWER8
# Cores 16 24 36 1.50 1.50 16 24 1.50
ERP SAP 2-Tier 7960 10253 16500 1.29 1.61 10000 21212 2.12
SPECint_rate 693 1020 1400 1.47 1.37 884 1750 1.98
SPECfp_rate 510 734 942 1.44 1.28 602 1370 2.28
SPECjbb2013 N/A 63079 195119 - 3.09 NA 361293 -
SPECjEnterprise2010
8310 11260 N/A 1.35 - 13161 22543 1.71
3.09 performance gain came from new version of Java and increased
memory (4x more)
1) IBM Power System S824 on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 4 processors / 24 cores / 96 threads, POWER8; 3.52GHz, 512 GB memory, 21,212 SD benchmark users, running AIX® 7.1 and DB2® 10.5, Certification # 2014016. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark All results valid as of October 3, 2014
2) Dell PowerEdge R730, on the two-tier SAP SD standard application benchmark running SAP enhancement package 5 for the SAP ERP 6.0 application; 2 processors/36 cores/72 threads, Intel Xeon Processor 2699v3; 2.30 GHz, 256 GB memory; 16,500 SD benchmark users, running RHEL 7 and SAP ASE 16; Certification # 2014033. Source: http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
3) SPECcpu2006 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/ 4) SPECjbb2013 results are submitted as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results 5) SPECjEnterprise2010 results are valid as of 9/8/2014. For more information go to http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/ 6) Oracle eBS 12.1.3 Payroll Batch Extra Large Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html7) Siebel 8.1.1.4 PSPP Kit and are current as of 3/24/2014. For more information go to http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html
Return to x86 Tactics
POWER8 is 89% better at the system level and 2.7x
the core performance
Return to x86 Tactics
x86 Claims – SW Costs are lower on x86
x86 CLAIM:
• Oracle SW is cheaper on x86 than on Power due to the 0.5 multiplier on x86 versus 1.0 on the Power Solution.
IBM RESPONSE:
• PowerVM is approved for sub-capacity licensing, allowing only the cores that are being utilized by the Oracle DB to require licenses; with x86/VMWare solutions, the customer must license every core for both DB and RAC from the time of purchase.
• Use the QuickCost TCA/TCO Tool (see IBM and PW links in the notes section) to demonstrate how we save clients real money in TCA and TCO around software licenses and support
Oracle Certification For VMware and KVM• Running Oracle in a VMware ESX cluster you must license ALL of the cores in the cluster
• Oracle DOES NOT recognise VMware as "hard partitioning"
• http://blogs.gartner.com/chris-wolf/2010/11/10/oracle-broadens-x86-virtualisation-support-but-work-remains/
• Running Oracle in a VMware ESX cluster is not certified. If support is required for unknown problems then you must recreate the problem without VMware installed view Oracle Metalink document 249212.1
• Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 integrates Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) and ships Xen as the default hypervisor, so they are supported by Oracle under the Oracle Linux support program. However, Oracle does not support Oracle products on RHEL's KVM/Xen.
• http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf
Executive Power Summary vs Intel Claims:
Power Systems Deliver a Lower TCA and TCO Compared againstLinux on Intel •Power Delivers
– Better Investment Protection for both HW and SW versus Intel degrading in performance with new products and additional cores (Haswell)
– Better RAS features at a lower Cost vs Intel which requires up to 4.5x more downtime– Better Performance at Higher System Utilization/Performance Levels
Which we Guarantee – POWER8 65% Sustained Utilization Guarantee with No Degradation in Performance while Intel averages 20-40%
– Better Scalability for intended and unexpected growth – buy what you need, when you need it versus Intel which requires additional system purchases for growth such as storage
– Better SecurityDon’t waste resources (time and money) patching endless systems
– And cost savings with POWER IS the icing on the cake
18
BACKUP
© 2014 IBM Corporation20
P8 Scale Out Sales Strategy - Memory
• Position as Scale Out Servers– Box to box comparison with minimal memory comparable to x86– Box to box comparison at 128, 256, 1,024GB translates to Power being
more expensive than x86.
Fact: With higher performance for Power, fewer servers and licenses are needed. Meaning lower TCA and TCO
Translation: In actual workloads, Power is less expensive when more than 1 server is required.
Power price is less with Server consolidation due to higher performance
Fact: P8 Centaur memory is more expensive than standard x86 memoryFact: Centaur memory is what give p8 servers 4x better memory performance
* Memory and I/O advantages translate into 2 – 10x better server performance
Don’t get caught up in Box to Box comparisons with x86.
Run a Proof of Concept (PoC) to prove the value of Power
© 2014 IBM Corporation21
P8 Scale Out Sales Strategy - Storage
• Position as Scale Out Servers– Box to box comparison of storage favors x86 Fact: With Power, if more storage is needed, a storage drawer can be
added. Fact: With x86 servers, if more storage is needed, a new server is
required which means more cores (more license cost) Translation: In actual Big Data environments, Terabytes up to Petabytes
of data are in use.
Adding storage drawers is more cost effective than adding additional servers to add storage.
Fact: P8 2U servers have max of 12 x 2.5” 2TB drives/Server = 24TBFact: x86 2U servers can have 16 or more 2.5” 2TB drives/Server = 32TB
Don’t get caught up in Box to Box comparisons with x86.
Run a Proof of Concept (PoC) to prove the value of Power
© 2014 IBM Corporation
Competitive Project OfficeCompetitive Project Office
POWER8 and Linux Deliver Over TWICE the Throughput Compared to Ivy Bridge-EP at 47% Lower Cost
182,672 User Interactions per secondUser Interactions per second
WebSphere on platformDatabase off platformWebSphere on platformDatabase off platform
$3.11 per UI per secper UI per sec
DB2DB2
Power S824Power S824
RHELRHEL
WASWAS
2S/24 Core POWER8 (3.525 GHz)2S/24 Core POWER8 (3.525 GHz)
PowerVMPowerVM
6 VMs6 VMs
DB2DB2
2S/24 Core Ivy Bridge-EP (2.7 GHz)2S/24 Core Ivy Bridge-EP (2.7 GHz)
85,939
WebSphere on platformDatabase off platformWebSphere on platformDatabase off platform
$5.84
User Interactions per secondUser Interactions per second
per UI per secper UI per sec
4 VMs4 VMs
RHELRHEL
WASWAS
RHELRHEL
WASWAS
RHELRHEL
WASWAS
RHELRHEL
WASWAS
RHELRHEL
WASWAS
RHELRHEL
WASWAS
RHELRHEL
WASWAS
Linux …..
…..
2.1x Faster
47% Lower cost per UI per sec
Web Application
Online Banking Workload v3.6 Both Servers configured to achieve maximum throughput
22
This is an IBM internal study designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload usage in the marketplace. It consists of a POWER8 S824 with 24 cores, 3.52 GHz, 512GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1 compared to an Ivy Bridge EP 24 cores 2.7 GHz, 256 GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1. The results were obtained under laboratory conditions, and not in an actual customer environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such, customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and other systems variations or testing conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment. Prices, where applicable, are based on published US list prices for both IBM and competitor, and the Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA) includes the list HW and SW prices and 3 years of service & support which is then divided by the number of transactions to get $ per user interaction per second.
This is an IBM internal study designed to replicate a typical IBM customer workload usage in the marketplace. It consists of a POWER8 S824 with 24 cores, 3.52 GHz, 512GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1 compared to an Ivy Bridge EP 24 cores 2.7 GHz, 256 GB Memory, RHEL 6.5, WAS 8.5.5.1, DB2 9.7, JDK 7.0 FP1. The results were obtained under laboratory conditions, and not in an actual customer environment. IBM's internal workload studies are not benchmark applications, nor are they based on any benchmark standard. As such, customer applications, differences in the stack deployed, and other systems variations or testing conditions may produce different results and may vary based on actual configuration, applications, specific queries and other variables in a production environment. Prices, where applicable, are based on published US list prices for both IBM and competitor, and the Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA) includes the list HW and SW prices and 3 years of service & support which is then divided by the number of transactions to get $ per user interaction per second.
Ivy Bridge EP CompetitorIvy Bridge EP Competitor
Competitive Hypervisor Competitive Hypervisor
Bon-Ton boosts e-commerce throughput by 2.5x and improves the customer experience while controlling costs
No increase in licensing costs
2.5x throughput for more orders per minute
50% fewer serversrequired compared with x86 systems
• Bon-Ton needed to expand capacity of its e-commerce environment to handle seasonal demand spikes and significant ongoing customer growth
• Migrated WebSphere Commerce from an x86 environment to Linux on Power Systems and PowerVM virtualization
• Substantially enhanced throughput without increasing per-core software licensing costs.