You didn’t say on what basis you chose those two results, comparing a 4-socket, 64-core 2012 result to a 2-socket, 20-core 2016 result.
Here’s a 4-socket 2016 result that looks like > 2x progress since the 2012 result: https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2016q3/cpu2006-20160725-43005.html This _would_ be an expensive system. There are a lot of 2-socket results that are a ~50% improvement over the 4-socket 2012 base result you pointed to, e.g.: https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2016q3/cpu2006-20160705-42720.html But I’m glad you have thousands of Phi’s too. -Tom From: Beowulf [mailto:beowulf-boun...@beowulf.org] On Behalf Of Stu Midgley Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:36 AM To: Beowulf List Subject: [Beowulf] bring back 2012? https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2016q2/cpu2006-20160308-39354.html https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2012q4/cpu2006-20121108-25077.html Its like no progress has been made. So glad that we have thousands of Phi's... -- Dr Stuart Midgley sdm...@sdm900.com<mailto:sdm...@sdm900.com>
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
