John R Pierce wrote: > On 03/08/12 6:33 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>> > ok, so 3 x 48/64 core servers uses the same power as 6 x 4/8 core ? >>> > thats still major win. >> Um, no - that's what I'm saying is*not* the case. The new suckers drink >> power - using a UPS that I could hang, say, 6 Dell 1950's off of,*if* >> I'm lucky, I can put three of the new servers. And at that, if a big jobs >> running (they very much vary in how much power they draw, depending on >> usage), even with only three on, I've seen the leds run up to where >> they're blinking, indicating it's near overload, over 90% capability. > > ok, how do you figure 3 48 core modern servers are not more powerful > computationally than 6 8 core servers? the 1950's were "cloverton" > which were dual core2duo chips, 2 sockets, at ~ 2-3GHz, for your 8 cores > per 1U. I'm sorry, but to me, the above is a non sequitur. I was talking about how much power the servers drink, and that the UPSs that I have can barely, barely handle half as many or less, and I'm running out of UPSs, and out of power outlets for them in such a small space (that is, a dozen or so in each rack), without trying to go halfway across the room. > > now, I dunno what your 48 core servers are, if thats really 2x12 cores > with 'hyperthreading', then those extra threads are NOT good for intense > numerical compute work as they share the FPU, but even those 24 cores > should be faster than twice as many 8 core systems. > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105264 mark