No
Generally speaking, I would consider the C6145 obsolete in nearly every regard. Hence, I have to bring more cores to the table to do the same amount of work as a newer CPU. And all the other stops will need to be pulled out as well if I want to keep the hardware relevant.
When I say the C6145 is a high performance server I MUST draw this conclusion from comparisons to like hardware only.
Like age groups in a 5K run. You'd never pit a 70 year old against a 24 year old and expect to draw any real performance conclusions for that.
But, we can aim for best time in that age group. The only real true test of "relative" performance.
When I build machines from the old days that seems like the most fulfilling method to gauge system performance.
Any other comparison would be indirect.
No, you don't need to go on. I think there was just a misinterpretation as to what exactly the other was thinking. I made the assumption you blanketly considered the C6145 as not an elite level server (regardless of timeframe) and I think you made the assumption that I still thought the hardware in a C6145 from 2010 is viable in today's high performance marketplace where CPU performance tends to jump exponentially with every release.You have quad Opterons. You in fact have 4 such server. Your nodes just happen to share power supplies and a drive backplane within a chassis, but are otherwise completely independent. The fact that the IBM server is also 2U, but only consist of a single node is irrelevant as since processing power is segregated at that level, there is little point in measuring things any other way since you're going to be running 4 independent OSs across what you have. CPU performance does not really vary from system to system.
I have not said that the system did not perform admirably a decade ago. I have stated that it is slow compared to today's desktop CPUs, which it is. On most of the test I showed, a 9900K is faster than two nodes. Holding the record 10 whole years ago means nothing today.
433.mlc - 9900K is 165% the speed of 4 x Opteron 6180 SE
444.namd - 9900K is 354% the speed of 4 x Opteron 6180 SE
450.soplex - 9900K is 524% the speed of 4 x Opteron 6180 SE
453.povray - 9900K is 429% the speed of 4 x Opteron 6180 SE
Need I go on? Do you not understand how quickly CPUs go obsolete? You seem to be purposefully dense and unwilling to grasp this or are just trolling. None of these tests even use modern instructions, where your Opterons are going to get blown away even further.
Generally speaking, I would consider the C6145 obsolete in nearly every regard. Hence, I have to bring more cores to the table to do the same amount of work as a newer CPU. And all the other stops will need to be pulled out as well if I want to keep the hardware relevant.
When I say the C6145 is a high performance server I MUST draw this conclusion from comparisons to like hardware only.
Like age groups in a 5K run. You'd never pit a 70 year old against a 24 year old and expect to draw any real performance conclusions for that.
But, we can aim for best time in that age group. The only real true test of "relative" performance.
When I build machines from the old days that seems like the most fulfilling method to gauge system performance.
Any other comparison would be indirect.