The review of Alpha NT systems concludes with a look at workstations from Polywell and Enorex
Over the past several months I've gotten to know some Windows NT Alpha workstations quite well. We went to lunch together, we made fun of the pokey little 300MHz processors from Intel and their clones, and we even tossed back a few beers. So you can imagine how difficult springing the bad news on my 533MHz friends was for me: The Alphas are no match for the wimpy little Pentiums and their kin.
You might think that you can add MHz sequentially to get systems with comparable performance so that, for instance, the performance of a dual 300MHz Pentium II (2 * 300MHz = 600MHz) system would roughly equal the performance of a single-processor 533MHz Alpha system. But the truth is that a single-processor 533MHz Alpha is no match for a dual 300MHz Pentium II. The fastest Alpha I tested for this Alpha NT workstation series of reviews scored a 496 WNT Peak Performance value, using the AIM Technology Workstation Benchmark for Windows NT. The fastest dual 300MHz Pentium II machine I've tested had an AIM WNT Peak Performance value of more than 900.
This canyon-sized performance gap between the single-processor Alphas and the dual 300MHz and 333MHz Pentium IIs I've been playing with in the Windows NT Magazine Lab comes as no surprise. After all, the dual Pentium IIs cost anywhere from two to seven times what some Alpha workstations go for. (Look for reviews of dual Pentium II workstations in the next issue of Windows NT Magazine.)
When I tested a single-processor 300MHz Pentium II system, it scored 515 on AIM's WNT Peak Performance metric--more bad news. Worse still, the fastest Alpha I've tested came with a 10,000rpm Ultra Wide SCSI hard disk, and the Pentium II system I tested had a 7200rpm IDE hard disk. When I used the AIM WNT Sustained Performance metric (the other system-level metric used in this series) to test the Pentium II system, the Pentium II was on par with the Alpha systems: The Pentium II scored 180 application jobs per minute vs. 135 to 191 application jobs per minute for the Alphas. The AIM WNT Sustained Performance results tell me the Pentium II and Alpha systems are comparable in overall performance. However, the AIM WNT Peak Performance results tell me a single-processor 300MHz Pentium II workstation has a slight advantage over a 533MHz Alpha workstation in maximum performance.
In terms of processor performance, the 533MHz 21164PC Alpha processor and the 300MHz Pentium II processor score roughly the same on the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) 95 integer benchmark. I'm not surprised that these systems run pretty much neck and neck in peak and sustained performance metrics. The Alpha 21164PC processor pulls ahead of the 300MHz Pentium II processor in performing floating-point calculations used in scientific, imaging, and multimedia applications. The SPEC95 floating-point benchmark for the Alpha is nearly twice that of the Pentium II processor. Using this benchmark, I achieved a SPEC95 floating-point value of 15.4 for the Alpha 21164PC processor; the published SPEC95 value for this processor is 16.1. The published SPEC95 floating-point value for a 300MHz Pentium II is 8.15. (For more information about the SPEC95 tests and to see the test results for other Alpha and Pentium systems, go to http://www.specbench.org.)
On the AIM Subsystem test that targets floating-point capabilities, a single-processor 300MHz Pentium II workstation achieves a score of roughly 110,000. A workstation with a 533MHz Alpha scores roughly 45,000--only about a quarter of what you'd expect, if you compare these scores in the same way that you compare the SPEC95 floating-point results for the two processors. What is causing this degradation in the Alpha's performance? The answer I found is simple: The Alpha's floating-point edge doesn't hold when you place the 21164PC processor in an SX or LX series motherboard.
To confirm my conclusion, I spoke with an AIM benchmark engineer, who directed me to tests that AIM has run on an NT workstation fitted with a 21164a processor from an Alpha server. (Most Alpha servers typically use four 533MHz 21164a processors.) The results of AIM's tests were similar to the results I achieved for the 21164PC processors for this Alpha workstation series. I conclude from these results that the 21164PC and 21164a processors are, on a core level, the same processor and, therefore, directly comparable. (AIM floating-point tests for an Alpha server, which multiple processors do not affect, give a score of roughly 200,000. This AIM floating-point value is what I expected to find, given the SPEC95 floating-point results.) Somewhere between the 21164PC's motherboard and the SX and LX series motherboards is a bottleneck the size of the Panama Canal. But don't just take my word for it--go to AIM's Web site at http://www.aim.com for the complete benchmark results on the full range of Alpha systems.
The Alpha workstations' disappointing performance in my testing isn't entirely a surprise. Some industry analysts would say that Pentium IIs and Alphas aren't on the same playing field when running NT 4.0, and I agree. Enhancements to the SX and LX series Alpha motherboards would boost Alpha workstation performance, but you still have to get the 64-bit Alpha processor to effectively run the 32-bit NT operating system (OS). Expecting an Alpha processor to run NT is like tying a prizefighter's hands behind his back and expecting him to win--it's a losing proposition every time. You can run the Alpha version of NT 4.0, which supports the 64-bit Alpha processor, but the OS doesn't run natively at 64 bits. But the times they are a-changin'. With the planned introduction of NT 5.0 late this year and the release of Intel's new 64-bit chip design (code-named Merced), also planned for late this year, the days of NT running in a 32-bit environment are numbered.
NT 5.0 probably won't be a pure 64-bit OS at first, but it likely will have 64-bit support built into the core design. The benefit of a 64-bit design is self-evident: more bandwidth, leading to significantly faster machines. The biggest obstacle to implementing a 64-bit OS is that only 32-bit software currently targets the NT platform. None of today's NT applications would run on a true 64-bit OS.
The NT platform will eventually have a pure 64-bit architecture. The current round of Pentium-based hardware will then be as obsolete as yesterday's 486. Not so the Alpha. Despite the results of my testing, the Alpha processor might be the most lasting hardware technology investment available for the NT platform today. Because we in the Lab believe in lasting investments, we've retained the use of the MaxVision Symbion AXP164SX 533MHz Alpha workstation (see "533MHz Monsters Come On Strong," April 1998). We believe the MaxVision engineers and technical support staff are among the best.
Still, big questions confront the Alpha design. For example, will an Alpha processor exist a year from now? Will an Alpha workstation exist a year from now? Will you be able to purchase an Alpha NT workstation 5 years from now? I answer yes to each question. Microsoft has stated it will support the Alpha design in future versions of NT, and 64-bit platforms will be state of the art in 5 years. Will the Pentium NT workstation exist 5 years from now? The answer depends on whether Merced carries the Pentium nameplate. A far more important question is, will you be able to purchase an NT workstation based on the current 32-bit Pentium design 5 years from now? I give the probability of an affirmative answer the same chance I'd give a prizefighter with both hands tied behind his back.
Prev. page
[1]
2
3
next page 
