Why use a Unix workstation?

Discussion in 'HP' started by yzhang, Jun 2, 2005.

  1. yzhang

    yzhang Guest

    I am completely new to unix risc-based workstation. However, by
    comparing the benchmarks between a 3.2Hz Xeon NT workstion and a HP
    9000 (c3700, J6000 for example), I found that NT workstations have much
    higher benchmarks(SPEC 2000, www.spec.org/osg/). So I am wondering why
    people still using unix workstations. Could anyone give me some clues
    please. thanks

    yzhang
     
    yzhang, Jun 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. yzhang

    Rick Jones Guest

    Not all benchmarks fit in cache and so not all benchmarks benefit from
    the much higher clock frequency. A j6000 runs the CPU at a whopping
    550 MHz. IIRC the c3700 was a bit higher.

    The c3700 and j6000 are/were 64-bit systems and so could go beyond 4GB
    RAM limits that until "recently" one could not (at least not easily)
    do with a Xeon system. They may have more aggregate I/O capacity.

    Keep in mind that the j6000 is now a very old system and the c3700 is
    an old system. I'm not sure when 3.2 GHz Xeon's hit the streets. So,
    while you may be new to Unix RISC-based workstations, the systems you
    are using are not at all new.

    rick jones
     
    Rick Jones, Jun 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Uh, the reason he's looking at old PA workstations is that there aren't any
    new ones. HP pulled the plug on PA development years ago, touting Itanium
    as the wave of the future. Home PC users were going to have Itaniums in
    their machines, serious workstation users were going to Itanium, and of
    course servers of all types were going to be Itanium.

    However, as the Itanium program imploded over time, the target for the chips
    shrank considerably. Intel is now saying that liquid-cooled mainframes is
    where they'll find a home. HP officially dropped their Itanium hpux workstations
    last September, effectively abandoning the workstation market. That better
    explains why competitive unix workstations from HP are hard to find.

    Itanium has always been the quintesential solution in search of a problem to
    solve, and still struggles in that regard. I'd give it one more CEO change
    at Intel before they flush this multi-billion-dollar boo-boo down the drain
    totally.
     
    David Kinsell, Jun 5, 2005
    #3
  4. 1.) The c3700 (PA-8700 750MHz) is around 3 years old, the J6000 is even
    older (>5 years). Your 3.2GHz XEON is how old? The c3700 and the J6000
    use 120MHz SDRAM memory which of course is much slower than the 800MHz
    Dual Channel DDR-SDRAM the XEON uses. All in all You are comparing old
    hardware with current hardware. And You really wonder why the newer
    hardware is faster? You better compare the XEON system with something
    more up2date like HP's c8000...

    2.) SPEC is a synthetic benchmark which depending on the kind of
    programs You want to run says much or simply nothing about the
    real-world performance of these systems.

    3.) Performance isn't everything. Some companies buy PA-RISC
    workstations to have desktop computers that are binary compatible with
    their big supercomputers, or simply want the reliability of HP-UX on
    their desktop...

    Benjamin
     
    Benjamin Gawert, Jun 5, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.