IBM's New Power 7 Server Lineup: More Speed

IBM this week introduced a range of new Power 7-based servers that fill out its System p offerings on both the high-end and low-end of the performance scale. The new servers come a few months after the first batch of mostly mid-range servers came on the market, the first to support IBM's Power 7 processor.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

Tom's Hardware is the leading destination for hardcore computer enthusiasts. We cover everything from processors to 3D printers, single-board computers, SSDs and high-end gaming rigs, empowering readers to make the most of the tech they love, keep up on the latest developments and buy the right gear. Our staff has more than 100 years of combined experience covering news, solving tech problems and reviewing components and systems.

  • willgart
    no desktop edition ? ;)
    8TB of RAM is what I need!!!
    Reply
  • nevertell
    Wow, imagine running pr0n off of an 8tb ramddisk.

    But seriousley, If I had at least 10 gb of ram, I'd run a script that is executed as fast as possible in the boot sequence to copy my whole /boot, /etc, /usr, /tmp and /var on it. And a script for shutdown so it's all copied back to disk in the end.
    Reply
  • hellwig
    The processor comes in four-, six- and eight-core configurations and is aimed squarely at Intel's Itanium and Sun's UltraSparc. IBM has been quite aggressive in pursuing those customers with offers of migration assistance in moving off the old hardware.
    I really don't see how this is possible. Aren't the architectures completely different? Wouldn't you have to convince new customers to recompile their entire codebase (or, at the very least, obtain pre-compiled copies from the vendor under some sort of maintenance contract)? Seems to me, this is just an upgrade for existing IBM customers, and an option for brand new customers. I don't think you'd convince anyone to move from Itanium or UltraSpark.
    Reply
  • bison88
    IBM Power CPU lineups are hardly interesting since their main client (Apple) dropped them 5 years ago. They do tend to find themselves in IBM's superscomputers which are always fun to watch in the race to an Exaflop.
    Reply
  • hellwig, much code today is not locked to a specific processor as it was in the old days of assembler coding. Ahh I remember it fondly. Code is written by compilers that don't care about the hardware and firmware underpinnings because such is isolated by additional layers of coding that has been standardized. For example Java is pretty portable, can run most anywhere on most anything without having to recompile. Now if you want to take advantage of a specific unique feature that the p box has or you move say from a Weblogic to a WebSphere server you might have to do some recompiling to take advantage of specific unique features.
    Reply
  • It's doubtful I could be convinced to upgrade from the AS/400 we still use for medical records to something they are offering.. if only because I know it'll cost a pretty penny to 'migrate'
    Reply
  • mayne92
    ^^^ Given what I've seen in the intellectual power of some Tom's readers, I feel many would actually click and do business with the spammer above...
    Reply
  • falchard
    Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. IBM has a competitor?
    Reply
  • dEAne
    I opt for IBM than HP servers.
    Reply
  • xrodney
    hellwigI really don't see how this is possible. Aren't the architectures completely different? Wouldn't you have to convince new customers to recompile their entire codebase (or, at the very least, obtain pre-compiled copies from the vendor under some sort of maintenance contract)? Seems to me, this is just an upgrade for existing IBM customers, and an option for brand new customers. I don't think you'd convince anyone to move from Itanium or UltraSpark.Personally i am supporting both and find P5-7 systems more stable and reliable then itanium. Also "offers of migration assistance in moving off the old hardware" is about moving/migrate data and software to new system/platform.
    Reply