UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Jeremy Los » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00



UltraSPARC-IIi  Vs. UltraSPARC-I
I'd like to know the difference between these 2 processors.

Will a 167 MHz Ultra 1 workstation blow a 270MHz UltraSPARC IIi Ultra 5 out
of the water? Do I actually get $4000 more power out of the Ultra 1? Am I
comparing apples 2 pairs?

Any suggestions or links are appreciated.

-Jeremy Loss

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Richard J. Aulet » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00


: UltraSPARC-IIi  Vs. UltraSPARC-I
: I'd like to know the difference between these 2 processors.

: Will a 167 MHz Ultra 1 workstation blow a 270MHz UltraSPARC IIi Ultra 5 out
: of the water? Do I actually get $4000 more power out of the Ultra 1? Am I
: comparing apples 2 pairs?

: Any suggestions or links are appreciated.

I am very suspicious about the fact that Ultra 5 and Ultra 10's use
EIDE drives and not SCSI. Could add a SCSI PCI adaptor.

I have to admit great disappointment about the 5 and 10 - over the
fact SCSI is not included and that the built in graphics is 8-bit again.

Looks to me Sun has abandoned the desktop market.

-Rich Auletta

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Bryan Althau » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00




: : UltraSPARC-IIi  Vs. UltraSPARC-I
: : I'd like to know the difference between these 2 processors.

: : Will a 167 MHz Ultra 1 workstation blow a 270MHz UltraSPARC IIi Ultra 5 out
: : of the water? Do I actually get $4000 more power out of the Ultra 1? Am I
: : comparing apples 2 pairs?

: : Any suggestions or links are appreciated.

: I am very suspicious about the fact that Ultra 5 and Ultra 10's use
: EIDE drives and not SCSI. Could add a SCSI PCI adaptor.

: I have to admit great disappointment about the 5 and 10 - over the
: fact SCSI is not included and that the built in graphics is 8-bit again.

: Looks to me Sun has abandoned the desktop market.

Sun never was in the desktop market, their in the Workstation market.
These are low cost workstations.  The need for SCSI for a single
user isn't all that critical and more importantly adds cost to the
system.   The whole idea with the Ultra 5/10's is to mimic that
hardware that people who buy NT systems use, aside for the CPU,
to try and match vost.

But I agree the 8bit card needs to be beefed up with more memory.

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Phil Mey » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00


[Posted and mailed]




>: UltraSPARC-IIi  Vs. UltraSPARC-I
>: I'd like to know the difference between these 2 processors.

>: Will a 167 MHz Ultra 1 workstation blow a 270MHz UltraSPARC IIi Ultra 5 out
>: of the water? Do I actually get $4000 more power out of the Ultra 1? Am I
>: comparing apples 2 pairs?

What we are seeing, is an Ultra 2 class system with PCI to make it cheaper.
The cost benefits are amazing!  The Ultra 5 will kill the Ultra 170E for
a fraction of the cost.

Quote:> I am very suspicious about the fact that Ultra 5 and Ultra 10's use
> EIDE drives and not SCSI. Could add a SCSI PCI adaptor.

> I have to admit great disappointment about the 5 and 10 - over the
> fact SCSI is not included and that the built in graphics is 8-bit again.

> Looks to me Sun has abandoned the desktop market.

What a farce!  The 5 and 10 are great systems at a great price.  The 60
is the fastest desktop ever made.  With dual scsi and dual PCI and
dual cpu and... What do you want?

For all the people who are buying intel system and running x86 because
of costs, they can now run Ultras.  The oil and gas/engineering/CAD/CAM
folks have been given the fastest graphics system around for a quarter of
the price!  Again, what do you want?

Look a little closer at the announcements.  I realize that there is a ton
of marketing bull in them, but they do contain a pretty clear picture of
where SUN is headed, and they do indicate a profound dedication to the
desktop.

For example, 11,000 (retail) will get you a 300MHZ Ultra 2 system with
a 4GB drive, 128MB RAM, 100BT, Creator 3D, and a 24" monitor.  Just the
monitor is $4,000.00.  This will run 24 bit color at 1920X1200.

I can't wait!
--
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+

+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.7.1

mQBNAzI9coIAAAECAOsKzNO5yCJiXX3/fLIH3x0JSU0LvNdlOrXpkJFtf/a5ahz4
H2l+qIS5RgdYRbhIy7yDRppgmLEWkhlRdwp4IXEABRG0HlBoaWwgTWV5ZXIgPHBo
aWxAd29ya3MudGkuY29tPg==
=Pdpx
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Richard J. Aulet » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00


: What a farce!  The 5 and 10 are great systems at a great price.  The 60
: is the fastest desktop ever made.  With dual scsi and dual PCI and
: dual cpu and... What do you want?

It is true. We might actually see Sun Systems coming back into the
Universities where the desktop is ruled in student labs by $1,000 PC's.
I am a bit shocked to see non-scsi systems from Sun though. But the 5 and
the 10 can be ordered with a PCI SCSI adaptor.

: For all the people who are buying intel system and running x86 because
: of costs, they can now run Ultras.  The oil and gas/engineering/CAD/CAM
: folks have been given the fastest graphics system around for a quarter of
: the price!  Again, what do you want?

A serial port that runs faster then 38.4K :)

It is true. For $10,000 I can have a Sparc Ultra, an Wintel box, and
a couple of printers at home, and even have some $$$ left for software
to glue it all together.

: For example, 11,000 (retail) will get you a 300MHZ Ultra 2 system with
: a 4GB drive, 128MB RAM, 100BT, Creator 3D, and a 24" monitor.  Just the
: monitor is $4,000.00.  This will run 24 bit color at 1920X1200.

From the just before the new year academic sell-off (Sun was pushing
Ultra 1 to universities at very low prices) $11,000 for that configuration
is a bit optimistic. I would agree, but drop the 24" monitor.

: I can't wait!

Maybe Ross will start selling an UltraSparc II-i module that will plug into
a Pentium II slot 1 socket :) (And a Ultrasparc ROM bios :)

-Rich Auletta

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Richard J. Aulet » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00


: Sun never was in the desktop market, their in the Workstation market.
: These are low cost workstations.  The need for SCSI for a single
: user isn't all that critical and more importantly adds cost to the
: system.   The whole idea with the Ultra 5/10's is to mimic that
: hardware that people who buy NT systems use, aside for the CPU,
: to try and match vost.

: But I agree the 8bit card needs to be beefed up with more memory.

In 1993 at the International Conference on Computer Design Boston
a Digital Equipment Company (DEC) Vice President gave a talk. The
thesis was that "computers" were going "commodity." That
everyone would use the same subsystems (keyboard, case, drives, system
standards, subsystems, etc) and only the processor would diferentiate
vendors.

In fact this VP talked about some effort to standardize the system
interface on uP's so they would interchangable like everything else.
Now even I did not believe that :)

Maybe Sun should package the UltraSparcII-i in a Pentium II slot 1 socket
package :)

-Rich Auletta

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Peter La » Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:00:00





>: : UltraSPARC-IIi  Vs. UltraSPARC-I
>: : I'd like to know the difference between these 2 processors.
>: : Will a 167 MHz Ultra 1 workstation blow a 270MHz UltraSPARC IIi Ultra 5 out
>: : of the water? Do I actually get $4000 more power out of the Ultra 1? Am I

U1/170s aren't US$10,000 any more.  More like half that and with the
1/13 announcements, I bet they'll drop more.  

Quote:>: I am very suspicious about the fact that Ultra 5 and Ultra 10's use
>: EIDE drives and not SCSI. Could add a SCSI PCI adaptor.

Anyone seen a price for these?  We need new machines here to replace
IPC/IPX/etc, but we MUST have SCSI as we use EXB-850x's a LOT.  Not to
mention having (far too many) desktop disks (to manage efficiently).

Quote:>system.   The whole idea with the Ultra 5/10's is to mimic that
>hardware that people who buy NT systems use, aside for the CPU,
>to try and match vost.

Managers only think of PCs.  This might help *me* keep intel off my
customers' desktops for a while longer.

Peter

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by james d lockwo » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00



Quote:> It is true. We might actually see Sun Systems coming back into the
> Universities where the desktop is ruled in student labs by $1,000 PC's.
> I am a bit shocked to see non-scsi systems from Sun though. But the 5 and
> the 10 can be ordered with a PCI SCSI adaptor.

Very true, and if you're feeling cheap you can go out to your local PC shop
and pick up an Adaptec 2940 card for peanuts.  They'll work on the U5 just
fine (they certainly do on the UE450).

Quote:> A serial port that runs faster then 38.4K :)

Sun serial ports have run much faster than this since the beginning of the
Ultra line, and handle more modes (synchronous is a biggie) than "normal"
PC serial ports do.  Thank you for playing.  :)

Quote:> It is true. For $10,000 I can have a Sparc Ultra, an Wintel box, and
> a couple of printers at home, and even have some $$$ left for software
> to glue it all together.

If you've got a SS1 or similar around (which can be had for next to nothing
these days) you can do a tradein to get an Ultra-5 for around $2750.  IMHO
the U5 shouldn't be compared to something like an Ultra-1, it should be
compared to a high end PC.  If you want SCSI or 24-bit graphics, they're
easy and reasonably cheap to add (figure $200 or $600).  Even with both,
you're well ahead of the previous Ultras in price.

Quote:> Maybe Ross will start selling an UltraSparc II-i module that will plug into
> a Pentium II slot 1 socket :) (And a Ultrasparc ROM bios :)

Ick, why?  Bus & PCI performance would be at PC levels.

-James

=============================================================================
James D. Lockwood                             The Getty Information Institute
System Administrator                       1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 300

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Peter C. Tribb » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00




Quote:> UltraSPARC-IIi  Vs. UltraSPARC-I
> I'd like to know the difference between these 2 processors.

> Will a 167 MHz Ultra 1 workstation blow a 270MHz UltraSPARC IIi Ultra 5 out
> of the water? Do I actually get $4000 more power out of the Ultra 1? Am I
> comparing apples 2 pairs?

Ultra 1 covers a range of machines. The cpu performance is roughly
comparable, as far as I can see from the specs. The real difference is
elsewhere - the Ultra 1E has much better graphics, and SCSI. The world
keeps moving, and we're finding that high resolution big screens are
almost a necessity and 24-bit colour (or at least, something with more
colour depth than 8-bit) is soon likely to be essential as well. The
fats is that fitting a better graphics card would have made the
machines look a *lot* better and wouldn't have cost much extra. The
Ultra 5 isn't competing with high-end PCs, it's competing with entry
level PCs and looks bad against them.

--
-Peter Tribble
HGMP Computing Services
http://www.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engine » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00


[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]


Quote:>Sun serial ports have run much faster than this since the beginning of the
>Ultra line, and handle more modes (synchronous is a biggie) than "normal"
>PC serial ports do.  Thank you for playing.  :)

Well, the zs serial ports aren't all that good.
Even on teh Ultra, you'd be hardpressed to get  performance past
38k4.  I think the new systems have better serial ports (the "se" driver)

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Bob Palowo » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00




> [[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]


> >Sun serial ports have run much faster than this since the beginning of the
> >Ultra line, and handle more modes (synchronous is a biggie) than "normal"
> >PC serial ports do.  Thank you for playing.  :)

> Well, the zs serial ports aren't all that good.
> Even on teh Ultra, you'd be hardpressed to get  performance past
> 38k4.  I think the new systems have better serial ports (the "se" driver)

You want to see an interesting serial buss look at the Universal Serial
bus on alot of PCs.  Never the less PC's run 115k baud with no problem.
I guess the real issue is you have all these 56K modems out these days
and your suppose to set the dte rate typically twice the effective
baud rate.  So 115K.  Have I been missing something for a long
time but where do you set all this up in the uucp config files
or modem configs.  I see lots of configurations for 2400 baud
modems etc. And if you buy PPP3.0.1 you get configurations for
28.8 and v.34 modems 33.3 but what about configs for the
56K modems?  This seem to be a bipartisan sparc/x86 problem.

---Bob

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Dima Volodi » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00



> You want to see an interesting serial buss look at the Universal Serial
> bus on alot of PCs.  Never the less PC's run 115k baud with no problem.
> I guess the real issue is you have all these 56K modems out these days
> and your suppose to set the dte rate typically twice the effective
> baud rate.  So 115K.  Have I been missing something for a long
> time but where do you set all this up in the uucp config files
> or modem configs.  I see lots of configurations for 2400 baud
> modems etc. And if you buy PPP3.0.1 you get configurations for
> 28.8 and v.34 modems 33.3 but what about configs for the
> 56K modems?  This seem to be a bipartisan sparc/x86 problem.

These 2400 entries are there for about 20 years now (or whenever BNU first
appeared in Unix in its current form). No one bothered to remove them from
there. As of the 115200 speed, I'm running my trusty old ZyXEL at 115200 off of
my x86 box without any problems whatsoever. All I have for its configuration in
is 115200, ATZ and ATD in Systems/Devices/Dialers.

Quote:> ---Bob

And, of course, zs sucks. I used to run X.25 at E1 speeds on high-speed cards,
but it's a completely different story :-)

Dima

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Nik Simpso » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00



>Sun never was in the desktop market, their in the Workstation market.
>These are low cost workstations.  The need for SCSI for a single
>user isn't all that critical and more importantly adds cost to the
>system.   The whole idea with the Ultra 5/10's is to mimic that
>hardware that people who buy NT systems use, aside for the CPU,
>to try and match vost.

Sun should have done a little more research, people buying NT systems as
replacements for Workstations are typically getting UltraWide SCSI and at
least 7200RPM and in many cases 10K RPM drives.

Quote:>But I agree the 8bit card needs to be beefed up with more memory.

Yes, 8 bit graphics on something supposed to compete with PC Workstation
products is a joke, it's hard to find anything in the PC world today that
only offers 8 bit graphics.

Anybody know if the EIDE implementation supports UltraDMA style access
(33MB/s), another increasingly common feature on non-SCSI PC Workstations.

--
Nik Simpson

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Sanjay Da » Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:00:00






>: : UltraSPARC-IIi  Vs. UltraSPARC-I
>: : I'd like to know the difference between these 2 processors.

>: : Will a 167 MHz Ultra 1 workstation blow a 270MHz UltraSPARC IIi Ultra 5 out

>: Looks to me Sun has abandoned the desktop market.

>Sun never was in the desktop market, their in the Workstation market.
>These are low cost workstations.  The need for SCSI for a single

I was hoping Sun will try to get in the hot sub $3000 web server
market with this product. Pentium II/SCSI III/etc. etc. now sound
more reliable compared to what Sun has put inside the new boxes.
(There is a lot of NT vs. UNIX neutral, but leaning towards NT,
market for mid level web servers in our experience).

Regards,
Sanjay.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Web Professionals, Inc.                Direct:  +1 408-863-4850
20111 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 145    Biz/NOC: +1 408-863-4848
Cupertino CA 95014 USA             http://web.professionals.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
-=- Your Outsourcing Partner for Website and Server Hosting -=-

 
 
 

UltraSPARC-IIi vs. UltraSPARC-I

Post by Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engine » Sat, 17 Jan 1998 04:00:00


[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]





>>> Maybe Ross will start selling an UltraSparc II-i module that will plug into
>>> a Pentium II slot 1 socket :) (And a Ultrasparc ROM bios :)
>I'd like to see one of these for the MBUS...

To do what, limp because of the lack of bandwidth or fry because lack
of cooling?

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

 
 
 

1. UltraSparc-III at DAC

According to this press release below, Sun will be showing the US-III
at DAC (Design Automation Conference) which started on the 21st
June. Anyone seen it? (first public demo AFAIK)

http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/9906/sunflash.990621.3.html

Quote, from bottom:
The third generation of Sun's UltraSPARC microprocessor family started
sampling earlier this month and can be seen in the Sun booth at
DAC. The first release of the UltraSPARC III processor is designed to
operate at 600 MHz with 1.5 GHz versions scheduled for 2002.
UltraSPARC III processor-based systems will scale up to 1000
processors. This microprocessor represents a step forward in
performance for the SPARC processor family and addresses rapidly
changing requirements in networked computing environments. The
scalability of the UltraSPARC III processor makes it easy to support
rapid infrastructure growth and it offers 100 percent binary
compatibility for both the Solaris operating environment and
application software.

By delivering the next generation of the UltraSPARC processor, Sun has
established itself as a leading chipmaker. OEMs are expected to build
systems incorporating the new UltraSPARC III processors to create
dedicated systems for intensive vertical market applications such as
EDA, Computer Aided Design (CAD), and Data Warehousing.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

2. Minicom with Slackware 2.030

3. Ultrasparc-III cpu recommended max core temp?

4. running my own domain under the university's domain

5. 300Mhz and 440Mhz UltraSPARC-IIi CPU modules

6. Software to driver HP scanjet II?

7. UltraSparc-IIi freezes all the time!!!

8. Early crc32 initialization

9. L2 Cache memory and UltraSPARC-IIi 360

10. reverting /SUNW,UltraSPARC-III@0,0 to 2

11. CORRECTION: 300Mhz and 440Mhz UltraSPARC-IIi CPU modules

12. Intel's Itanium 2 vs Sun's UltraSPARC III

13. Performance evaluation: UltraSPARC vs. P-III