Competitive Comparisons POWER8 versus Intel x86. Contents x86 Vendor Claims IBM Response 2

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.


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.


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.


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


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


http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/

http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results

http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/

http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html

http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html

• 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)





http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/

http://www.specbench.org/jbb2013/results

http://www.specbench.org/jEnterprise2010/results/

http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/apps-benchmark/results-166922.html

http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/benchmark/white-papers/siebel-167484.html

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.


}}

Typical deceptive x86 positioning

against Power


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


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


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


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.


Power RAS Involves More Than Just the Processor


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


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)


• 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)





POWER8 is 89% better at the system level and 2.7x

the core performance


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.

Documents

Competitive Comparisons POWER8 versus Intel x86. Contents x86 Vendor Claims IBM Response 2