Best offers

All about Miscellaneous
 Latest Miscellaneous articles
All Miscellaneous articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

crazy : Interactive Boogy Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
violent : Interactive Buddy Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
Ads

Sponsored links

Conclusion

Previous Next
2:40 AM - 07/23/2008 by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos

The amount of information during the SIPEW 2008 workshop was mind blowing. We had expected a workshop on upcoming benchmarking solutions by SPEC, but the presentations went into far deeper detail. This article described the two aspects of the workshop we believe are most relevant to our readers and to a vast audience, namely efficient task scheduling in enterprise environments, and power efficiency testing for enterprise system solutions.

The information at the conference and in the SIPEW 2008 book on performance evaluation is strictly scientific, and as a consequence also less valuable to administrators, decision makers and tech enthusiasts, where recommendations for real-life applications count the most. The workshop was aimed at the very few people inside large corporations who do little other than thinking of new ways to assess the performance and efficiency of enterprise systems, in an effort to find the best bang for the buck and best return on investment.

The conclusion of the event for our readers is that the increasing complexity of system solutions, especially server farms, requires an increasing investment in analysis and research. SPEC and its members to have a lot of information on workload scheduling strategies, and they have now presented SPECpower_ssj2008, which is a very solid power efficiency benchmark for Java server systems. However, SPEC cannot spare you a detailed evaluation of your own requirements, as the applications and system varieties are extremely diversified. Unfortunately, new benchmarks are unlikely to be simple click & run solutions, and a suitable and sufficiently broad variety of testing is indispensable to getting relevant results.

Talkback
rhysee 07/23/2008 11:31 PM
Hide
-1+

Yawn .. what a boring article.

cangelini 07/23/2008 11:42 PM
Hide
-1+

Rhysee :
Yawn .. what a boring article.



Sounds like a good place to talk about what you'd like to be reading from the Tom's crew. We're all ears =)

pogsnet 07/24/2008 6:30 AM
Hide
-0+

I am expecting you use that software as sample between 9800GTX and HD 4850 both are good contender

cangelini 07/24/2008 6:34 AM
Hide
-1+

pogsnet :
I am expecting you use that software as sample between 9800GTX and HD 4850 both are good contender



Unfortunately, probably not going to happen ;-)

eodeo 08/13/2008 5:57 AM
Hide
-0+

Wouldn’t it be MORE fair to say that SPECviewperf is more like a cheat test that states that very crippled workstation cards are still faster than the vastly hardware superior “gaming” cards only due to driver restriction and more importantly, software optimizations?

If anything SPEC is one big Cheat tester, whose results you might as well plunge down the drain, since you aren’t going to get any useful info out of them.

To top that off, the test still uses OpenGL- just burry the darn thing. Mac users can complain all they want, but no self-respecting professional application has been recommending OGL for anything, but legacy for quite some time now. OpenGL is outdated for several years now. It’s both noticeably slower and has far lesser visual quality compared to DX 9.0c implementations.

I’m not sure about the rest of the SPEC family, but if SPECviewperf is any indication, its not looking good for them either.

I get that SPECheatTest can exist since many ignorant people still use “professional” cards and OpenGL, but why don’t you at least mention this in your article, or are you happy Quadro Mac users as well? Testing under a bell environment that proves that "professional" cards with 1/20 power of a current "gaming" card is still faster is just a self fulfilling prophecy. Who needs to see this propaganda? Who are workstation cards manufacturers trying to fool? The ignorant. How about you? Question directed at THG.

Both “SPECheatTest” and “Macs are not 200% more expensive, honest” articles have been an insult to the intelligence.

Thank you for reading.

eodeo 08/13/2008 6:00 AM
Hide
-0+

Quote :(SPEC) – a non-profit organization with the goal of providing relevant and realistic standard benchmarks.


Could anything be more further from the truth? How about black is actually white. Yeah, that about does it- barely.

Comments are closed on this page.

Sponsored links