Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Oracle Hardware

Oracle To Halve Core Count In Next Sparc Processor 200

angry tapir writes "Oracle will halve the number of cores in its next Sparc processor and instead improve its single-thread performance, a weak area for the chip but one that's important for running large databases and back-end applications. The next Sparc chip on Oracle's roadmap, the T4, will have eight cores on each chip, down from 16 in the current Sparc T3."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle To Halve Core Count In Next Sparc Processor

Comments Filter:
  • Re:and? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @08:06PM (#34481622) Journal

    I don't think losing some grumpy OpenOffice and OpenSolaris users qualifies as "everyone has already decided to move away from Oracle". Java will be used for a long time to come, and has big time penetration in the enterprise world, as does Oracle's database offerings. And while I agree that "cores" is a buzz word, I'm not so sure at that level it's all down to the quality of marketing. We're talking very big customers who in a lot of cases have very specific needs, and tailoring your hardware to fit with the market your serving isn't a dumb thing to do.

  • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @08:09PM (#34481646) Journal

    I wasn't aware the Alpha was that bad. I thought it was simply that the benefit of the processors wasn't great enough to convince companies to move from the much cheaper x86 platform. I saw a couple of Alpha desktops and they were pretty impressive.

  • Re:and? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @08:51PM (#34481958)

    The reality is that all the biggest software houses - Micrsoft, IBM, Oracle, SAP, CA etc. are an oligopoly, sure you may shuffle the users around a little as they move from one uncooperative money-hungry giant to the other but they don't leave.

    That's because the industry is financially dominated by clueless customers who purchase what they do not really understand and do not wish to learn. This is true both in the case of corporate management (the techies don't usually make the purchasing decisions) and in the case of the "average consumer".

    but somehow I doubt slashdot commends the IT industry.

    Why not? It could use a little praise from time to time...

  • Sanity, at last! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kanto ( 1851816 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @09:36PM (#34482306)

    When will people realize that not everything runs better on more cores, especially stuff that's highly dynamic say like a database query which is effectively a long sequence of conditionals. You talk to people and the first thing they ask is "yeah, but how many cores does it have"... it's like multithreading didn't exist until dualcore cpus.

    A cpu has a limited amount of processing power; some things you can only do in sequence ergo you can't do them in parallel ergo you're limited by the core-speed ergo you're fucked with 16 core 1GHz machine against a 1 core 2GHz machine.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 07, 2010 @10:16PM (#34482506)

    Yeah I had a 486-DX100 and a 233 MHz Alpha 21064, both running Red Hat Linux.

    The Alpha was so much faster for native compiled stuff, but I couldn't get Netscape for Alpha, and running Netscape for x86 under the EM86! emulator was as slow as browsing the web with a Python based browser at the time. They were both too slow to keep up with "fast" downloads like a 28k modem... So I wound up using the 486 machine as my graphics console, and running all of my batch stuff on the Alpha, with them sitting next to each other connected by cheap coax ethernet.

    What amazes me is that I now have a quad core 2.4GHz Intel i7 Xeon with 12 GB of triple-channel RAM and gigabit connection to the internet here at work in a university, and I still get uncomfortable lags with browsing. Compared to my 486DX-100 and 20 MB of RAM, I am not sure I see that much more value in todays web to warrant this level of resource overhead. I expected us to be in the sci-fi future by the time we had this kind of equipment...

  • Re:ORE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @12:58AM (#34483526) Journal EXACTLY is "Oracle ruining" anything at all? They are simply going to halve the cores and hopefully give single threads a serious kick in the ass. It is just as I said here when everyone thought Oracle was gonna kill SPARC and Solaris: Oracle is gonna offer a "top to bottom" IBM style stack, with a custom SPARC chip and a stripped down Solaris both optimized for running an Oracle DB with high throughput.

    Frankly I think it is a damned good business move and will probably make old Larry another mountain of money. It was pretty obvious that Sun with their flip flopping all over the place simply couldn't figure out how to make money with what they had, and old Larry took one look and figured he did. Considering how many enterprises run Oracle DB, and how PHBs like having only a single vendor to deal with, where is the bad? It is just business 101: buy a business that is floundering, get rid of the dead weight, and the revitalize the good parts. I have NO doubts that in three years or less Oracle will be THE DB to run in large and small enterprises, with a custom setup that will be easy to deploy and have incredible throughput. So where is the bad?

No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.