Quote:
Originally Posted by
gito
A lot of people realized that if you are calculating performance per core Power7 are slower then Power6.
Sorry to say this, but you should get your wording right: you are confusing
speed with
performance. This is the reason why even synthetical measurements of CPU performance come in several different numbers instead of some "grand total": there is SPECint, SPECfp, etc., etc. Even then this is not the whole picture when you try to determine how fast the work you want to be done is in fact done: there is L1-, L2- and L3-cache with certain I/O-bandwidth and cache hit-/miss-ratios, there is memory interface bandwidth, there are (a certain number of) pipelines, speculative execution, out-of-order execution, etc., etc.. All these are affecting how fast a program becomes executed, depending on how well a certain program makes use of these various things. And this is only the processor - not to mention the various other devices which affect the working of a system.
To say "processor A is slower than processor B" is like saying "green is better than yellow" - without a frame of reference detailing
in which regard it means nothing. It might be that green is
better suited for your purpose than yellow, but without stating this purpose in detail you haven't said anything at all.
To come back to the thread-O/Ps problem: without detailed information about the two systems and some way of making them comparable there is no way to say anything meaningful. You said that the two systems have different OS versions, different application versions and (so i do suppose) they differ in some other respects too. It might be that the different processors are the reason, it might as well be something else or a mixture of many factors. There is simply not enough data to base any assumption on.
I hope this helps.
bakunin