the advantage of ibm power systems.ppt

2009 IBM CorporationThe Advantage of IBM Power Systems

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower Systems continues a 7+ year run of growthSun SPARC and HP/Itanium continue in decline Source: IDC Quarterly Server Tracker 2Q09 release, September 2009UNIX Server Rolling Four Quarter Average Revenue Share

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power Systems What drives Power Systems growth?

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower Systems continue leadership in the primary requirements for large scale computingEfficient ScalabilityPerformanceReliability, Availability, and ServiceabilityManageabilityOver four decades of running the largest, most mission-critical applications

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsXeon 7500 will extend Nehalem architecture to four & eight socket systemsA MONSTER CHIP IS COMING. The next generation of MP processor is targeted for production later this year, and by all accounts it is going to be a monster. Nehalem-EX is part of the Nehalem family of processors, but compared to its siblings it has the highest cores/threads count, largest shared cache, highest CPU-to-CPU bandwidth, highest I/O bandwidth, highest memory capacity, highest memory bandwidth, greatest scalability, and highest level of Reliability/Availability/Serviceability. Its expected to bring a gargantuan, unprecedented leap in capabilities and performance--the biggest leap in all of Xeon product history. from a blog posted by Matt_K on Jun 8, 2009 5:45:18 PM available at www.intel.comSource: Intel Server Update, May 26, 2009 available at http://download.intel.com/pressroom/pdf/nehalem-ex.pdf

Comparison according to IntelXeon 5500 vs Xeon 5400 per socket or per coreXeon 7500 vs Xeon 7400 per socketDatabase Transactions2.52.5Integer throughput1.71.7Floating point throughput2.22.2Memory2.32.0Memory Bandwidth3.59.0

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsThe 2007 570 is 28% faster than 2010 Xeon 5570 on TPC-CThe Latest Power 570 5.0GHz system is even fasterFor complete TPC-C results, go to www.tpc.orgVirtualized Power performance beats Native Xeon

tpmCPrice / tpmCData baseSystems Availability4.7GHz IBM Power 570 (8 chips, 16 cores, 32 threads)1,616,1623.54USDEnterprise11/21/07> 21 months agoHP ProLiant DL370 G6 (2 chips, 8 cores, 16 threads)631,7661.08USDStandard03/30/09>4 months ago

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPOWER6 beats Intels best on per core performance See slide Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detailDatabase & Web application server licensing benefits from better per core performance

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower Systems offer unmatched scalabilitySee slide Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detail>9.5 times the Xeon 5500 throughput for OLTP>4 times the Xeon 7500 throughput for integer

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsIts about the system not just the chipSee slide Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detailPower Systems offers balanced systems design with the bandwidth to get the most performance and scalability from the processor

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower Systems offer near-linear scalabilitySee slide Substantiation for Power Systems Leadership Performance for detailBalanced systems design allows for linear performance as core-count and utilization increases

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsITIC Survey says Power Systems with AIX deliver 99.997% uptime- 54% of IT executives and managers say that they require 99.99% or better availability for their applications

Power Systems with AIX delivers the best RAS of UNIX, Linux, Windows choicesAvailability: The least amount of downtime 15 minutes a year2.3 times better than the closest UNIX competitormore than 10X better than WindowsReliability: The fewest unscheduled outagesless than one outage per yearServiceability: The fastest patch time11 minutes to apply a patchSource: Network World, dated July 14, 2009, reports on the 2009 ITIC Global Server Hardware & Server OS Reliability Survey Results

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsSo why would anyone buy an Itanium server?THE RECENT LAUNCH of Intel's Dunnington based six-core Xeon processors won't spell the end for the Itanium family.Despite the significant performance gains of the new x86 based Xeon's, the company has confirmed that Itanium continues to be a viable choice for some customers primarily due to the 'Reliability Availability Serviceability' (RAS) features implemented in the VLIW based Itaniums.Joachim Aertebjerg, Intel's Server Product Line director. quoted in Dunnington won't sink Itanic says Intel, By Ian Williams, Thursday, 18 September 2008, 09:11

Nehalem-EX will add new reliability, availability, and serviceability (RAS) features traditionally found in the companys Intel Itanium processor family, such as Machine Check Architecture (MCA) recovery.Intel Previews Intel Xeon Nehalem-EX Processor, May 26, 2009 Press Briefing

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower Systems RAS is designed for the toughest applications from the same people who defined what mainframe-class means

#1,2,3 - See POWER6 RAS in backup; See the following URLs for addition details:http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/availability.htmlhttp://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/virtualization.html

RAS FeaturePOWER6SPARCIntegrityXeon Application/Partition RAS Live Partition MobilityYesNoNoYes Live Application MobilityYesNoNoNo Partition Availability priorityYesNoNoNo System RAS OS independent First Failure Data CaptureYesNoNoNo Redundant System InterconnectNoYesNoNo Memory KeysYesNoNoNo Processor RAS Processor Instruction RetryYesYesNoNo Alternate Processor RecoveryYesNoNoNo Dynamic Processor DeallocationYesYesYesNo Dynamic Processor SparingYesYes2Yes2No Memory RAS ChipkillYesYesYesYes Redundant MemoryYesYesYesYes I/O RAS Extended Error HandlingYesNoNoNo

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsCommon management architecture and components to maximize resource utilization across the enterprise

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower Systems continue leadership in the primary requirements for large scale computing Efficient Scalability * >9.5 times the systems throughput of Xeon 5500Performance* 28% more OLTP throughput per coreRAS* Best reliability, best availability, best serviceabilityManageability* The glue that lets you convert capability to serviceOver four decades of running the largest, most mission-critical applications

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower Systems continue leadership in the primary requirements for consolidationChoice of consolidating within an operating environment (OE) or consolidating multiple OEsAll applications run in a virtualized environmentLow overhead virtualizationBalanced scalability for a wide variety of applicationsManageability196719731987Celebrating 10 years of Power virtualization.200720041999

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsSingle workload on a single systemAverage Utilization: 20.7%Peak: 79% Configuration planned for growth (20% unused?)Configuration planned for peaks (50% unused?)System waits for I/O and memory access even when it is working (20% unused?)Typical serving running a single application is < 20% utilized80% of the hardware, software, maintenance, floor space, and energy that you pay for, is wasted What you pay for What you get The challenge of scale out computing

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsReduce cost: Why is scalability important?The #1 reason IT managers deploy virtualization solutions is workload consolidation

Put simply, the more workloads that can be encapsulated within VMs and combined onto a single server, the higher the consolidation ratio and greater the cost reduction

The integrated combination of POWER architecture and PowerVM makes possible far higher consolidation ratios than the x86 architecture and VMware vSphere

*IBM Power SystemsIBM ConfidentialReduce cost: PowerVM delivers superior scalability to maximize consolidation and drive down IT costs Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf

Scalability FactorsVMware ESX 3.5(in VMware Infrastructure 3)VMware ESX 4.0(in VMware vSphere 4)PowerVMVirtual CPUs per VM4864Memory per VM64 GB255 GB4096 GBVirtual NICs per VM410256CPUs per physical server326464Memory per physical server256 GB1024 GB4096 GB

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsReduce cost: Scalability of virtual CPUsVMware vSphere 4No more than 8 virtual CPUs can be assigned to a single VM (up from 4 in prior version)The 8 virtual CPUs option is only available in the high-end Enterprise Plus editionThis constraint limits the type of high-end workloads that can be virtualizedNote: It does not matter if more than 8 CPU cores are available on the physical host(Example: a four-socket Nehalem EX x86 system will have 32 total cores, but a single VM cannot be configured to use all 32 of those cores)

PowerVMCan assign as many CPU cores as are available on the physical host(Example: a VM (LPAR) can use all 64 cores on a Power 595)Each virtual CPU can run two threads, resulting in a maximum of 128 threads per VM

Result: A more effective solution for CPU-intensive workloadsSource: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsImprove service: PowerVM delivers superior flexibility to optimize IT resource utilization and boost responsivenessSource: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf

Flexibility FactorsVMware ESX 3.5(in VMware Infrastructure 3)VMware ESX 4.0(in VMware vSphere 4)PowerVMDynamic virtual CPU changes in VMNoAdd (but not Remove)YesDynamic memory changes in VMNoAdd (but not Remove)YesDynamic I/O device changes in VMNoNoYesDirect access to I/O devices from within VMNoSome (with Nehalem)YesMaximum simultaneous live migrations448

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsEvery Power Systems benchmark published since July, 2004 has been run in a virtualized environment with the hypervisor activeOver 70 leadership benchmarks published in last 5 years

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsImprove service: Consolidating diverse enterprise workloadsVMware vSphere 4Only supports native x86-based workloads mainly Windows and Linux/x86No plans to extend support to workloads created for other architecturesManagement tool (vCenter) is limited to an x86-only subset of IT infrastructurePerpetuates silos of virtualization that require multiple management tools

PowerVMSupports all workloads built for AIX, IBM i and Linux (including Linux/x86)IBM Systems Director can manage VMware, Xen, Hyper-V, KVM, PowerVM, and z/VM virtualized workloads with VMControlScales to support the most demanding mission-critical workloadsSource: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/key_features_vsphere.pdf

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsScale within simplifies the data centerServer 1Server 0Server 2Server 3Server 4Server 5Server 6Server 7SAN Switch 0SAN Switch 1SCALE-OUT:Cables, routers, & switches are: additional points of failuredifficult to keep track ofexpensive to maintain

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsOnly PowerVM allows you to completely virtualize your datacenterPower Systems continue leadership in primary consolidation requirements:Support for virtualize everything including large production workloadsBuilt in virtualization so you get the performance you expectInfrastructure designed for virtualization with superior bandwidth to support a wide variety of applicationsMulti-platform manageability to support Power, z, and x systems with a single management system

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsClients are migrating to Power Migration expertise Dependable roadmap Consolidation value

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsCompetitive migrations to IBM Power2009 momentumWins from Sun grew 111% QTQWins from HP grew 44% QTQMore than 1,750 IBM Migration Factory wins to dateCompetitive displacements

2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsSave up to 93% in annual energy costs!By consolidating 34 16-core Sun V890s into ONE rack of Power 570 systems --Reduce floor space required by 93%--Reduce processing cores by over 88% One Rack of Power 570s (@ 60% utilization) 544 total cores @ 2.1 GHz Over 109 sq. ft. of floor space required up to 1,442 MWh annual energy 34 Sun V890s (@ 20% utilization) 64 total cores @ 4.2 GHz Only 1 Rack 7.6 sq. ft of floor space Save up to 1,344 MWh annually up to $195k in energy savings per year!See Power 570 power and efficiency claims and Power 570 consolidation claims* charts in backup for full substantiation details.

2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsConsolidate up to 39 non-virtualized Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 servers into one IBM Power 595 server 624 total cores @ 2.4 GHzUsing an average of 20%maximum capacity182,676 VA Maximum Power requirement**64 total cores @ 5.0 GHzUsing an average of 60% of maximum capacity27,700 Maximum WATTS**See page notes on 39 to 1 for detailOne IBM Power 595 server* 39 Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Servers*Reduce maximum energy use by up to 84%Save up to 80% of the floor space

2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsSave up to $840,000 and 83% of the energy use!Coming From: 2 Racks: 13 V490 servers Maximum energy requirement of 22,750 WATTsList price of $981,360Maximum energy requirement of 14,952 WATTs1 rack of 4 M5000 serversList Price of $140,955Maximum energy requirement of 2,400 WATTs8U - One Power 560 Express serverM5000 supports no more than 4dynamic domains per system andwould require Four M5000 serversto consolidate 13 V490sSee Power 560 versus M5000 consolidation substantiation in backup for substantiation detail.If Solaris Containers could be used:Two M5000 servers required: List price of $490,680 and 7,296 WattsBy consolidating on the Power 560 Express instead of the Sun M5000-- Use 1/5 the rack space

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsEnergen Corporation reduces costs with migration from Sun to IBM Power Systems Client requirementsImprove system performance and support for the companys SAP ERP (enterprise resource planning) application by consolidating its sprawling 20-unit Sun server environmentReduce the total cost of ownership by cutting its licensing costs for the Oracle databases, which support the companys SAP systemSolutionMigrated its SAP ERP system and Oracle databases onto two IBM Power servers [570s] Engaged IBM Business Partner Mainline Information Systems to demonstrate how leveraging virtualization technology could cut Oracle licensing costsBenefitsReduces Oracle licensing costs by 40 percent, contributing to US$500,000 in annual savings Provides a more efficient, available infrastructure that combines lower capital and operational costs with better performance and flexibilityConsumes significantly less floor space and power

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsSAP Application Servers are exploding as environments grow in complexity

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsOsram Sylvania consolidates SAP environment from Alpha & x86 to PowerBusiness challenge: Replace 50 legacy HP Alpha and Windows servers running mission-critical SAP applications with a flexible, highly reliable system that would remain viable for more than five years and offer lower operational costs.

Solution: Lowered operational costs and gained infrastructure flexibility when they teamed with IBM and SAP to migrate their SAP ERP applications to the IBM Power Systems platformSAP ERP 6.0SAP NetWeaver Business Information Warehouse 3.1IBM Power Systems models 570, 550IBM AIX operating systemPowerHA for AIXOracle DBIBM Global Business Services

Benefits: Batch times reduced by a factor of fiveUser response times cut in halfService to the business dramatically improvedFewer servers means lower administration, maintenance, energy, cooling and license costs

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsInternet Retail Innovation Supported by Managed Infrastructure Growth Business challenge: Move to a platform that would support Novell SUSE Linux applications and allow them to quickly scale up and stay one step ahead of the growing customer base Benefits: In same POWER-based architecture footprint since 2005, scaling up to meet demand that has taken them to a projected US$1 billion in gross merchandise sales during 2008.

Plans to use Live Partition Mobility on new POWER6 processor architecture for new application development and testinghttp://www.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/CS/ARBN-7JZLCT?OpenDocument&Site=corp&cty=en_us

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsThousands are moving to PowerMigration expertisePower Rewards to offset migration costProven dependable roadmapProven utilization for maximum consolidationThe best choice for UNIX users

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power Systems IBM Power Systems are the right choice.

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsSubstantiation for Power Systems Leadership PerformanceSources for the biggest leap falls shortComparison to Xeon 5500 and Xeon 7400 for integer throughput, floating point throughput and DB transactions based on SPECint_rate2006, SPECfp_rate2006, and TPC-C benchmark results shown on chart Power to Xeon substantiation. Comparison to Xeon 7500 based on Intel projections of Xeon 7500 to Xeon 7400. Note: This is not intended to be a projection of the benchmark results. Comparisons to Itanium based on best results of any HP Integrity system from Compare UNIX Systems, Performance at http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. All results are current as of August 3, 2009.Sources for unmatched scalabilityComparison to Xeon 5500 and Xeon 7400 for integer throughput, floating point throughput and DB transactions based on SPECint_rate2006, SPECfp_rate2006, and TPC-C benchmark results shown on chart Power to Xeon substantiation. Comparison to Xeon 7500 based on Intel projections of Xeon 7500 to Xeon 7400. Note: This is not intended to be a projection of the benchmark results. Comparisons to Itanium based on HP Integrity Superdome results from Compare UNIX Systems, Performance at http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. IBM results were for the IBM Power 595. All results are current as of August 3, 2009.Sources for Scalability is about systemsSource: HP QuickSpecs available at www.hp.com, Dell Datasheets and Dell PowerEdge ServersPRESS KIT - Intel Xeon Processor 5500 Series available at www.intel.com and the POWER6 TechEx presentation. All data is current as of June 29, 2009.Sources for efficient linear scalability based on SAP SD 2-tier benchmark using SAP ERP release 6.0 (without the Unicode extensions). Benchmark detail and results are shown at Compare UNIX Systems, Performance at http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/systems/power/performance.html. All results are current as of August 3, 2009

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower to Xeon SubstantiationCompetitive benchmark results reflect results published as of May 26, 2009. The results are the best results for the systems compared. SPEC and the benchmark names SPECrate, SPECint, and SPECjbb are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.orgCompetitive benchmark results reflect results published as of May 26, 2009. The results are the best results for the systems compared.For the latest TPC-C benchmark results, visit http://www.tpc.org

2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower 570 power and efficiency claimsComparisons between the IBM Power 570, HP Integrity Superdome, HP Integrity rx8640, Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000, Sun Fire E6900 and Sun Fire V890.All systems were compared based on maximum processor configurations unless recommended wattage was available for other configurations. Maximum configurations were used because that is the data point for which power requirements are defined. Other configurations of these systems could have different performance per watt metrics. Performance/watt is calculated by dividing the performance metric by the recommended maximum power usage for site planning. Actual power used by the systems will be less than this value for all of the systems. This information for the Power 570 is in "Model 9117-MMA server specifications" available at http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/systems/scope/hw/topic/iphdx/sa76-0091.pdf. The power requirement for the Power 570 is 5600 watts.The information for the HP Integrity Superdome is in QuickSpecs HP Integrity Superdome Servers 16-processor, 32-processor, and 64-processor Systems available at http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/Division/Division.html#11715. The power requirement for the 64 core Superdome is 12,196 watts.The information for the rx8640 is in "QuickSpecs HP Integrity rx8640 Server" available at http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12471_div/12471_div.HTM. HP defines multiple maximum power ratings. This calculation uses the Marked Electrical for server which is consistent with the maximum selected for the other servers. The power requirement for the rx8640 is 5400 watts.The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000 Server Site Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/source/819-4203-12/21ch3p.html. The power requirement for the M8000 is 10,500 watts.The information for the Sun Fire E6900 Server is in the Sun Fire E6900/E4900 Systems Site Planning Guide available at http://docs.sun.com/source/817-4117-14/environment.html. The power requirement for the E6900 is 9,410 watts.The information for the Sun Fire V890 Server is in the Sun Fire V490/V890 Servers with UltraSPARC IV+ 2100MHz CPU/Memory Modules Supplement available at http://dlc.sun.com/pdf//820-0714-10/820-0714-10.pdf. The power requirement for the V890 is 4,843 watts.

2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower 570 consolidation claims* The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors: A performance factor of 5.67X was applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPEC results source: www.spec.org . Power 570 (32-core, 16 chips, 2 cores per chip, 4.2 GHz) SPECjbb2005 1,390,087 bops, 86,880 bops/JVM as of 10/7/2008; Sun Fire V890 (16-core, 8 chips, 2 cores per chip) 2.1 GHz, SPECjbb2005 244,846 bops, 30,606 bops/JVM as of 9/25/2008. A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies conducted by Alinean available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. A factor of 2X was used to represent the ability to install two 32-core Power 570 systems in a single rack. Power consumption figures of 5600 W for the IBM Power 570 and 4843 W for the Sun Fire V890 were based on the maximum rates published by IBM and Sun Microsystems, respectively. Air conditioning power requirement estimated at 50% of system power requirement. Energy cost of $.0971 per kWh is based on 2008 YTD US Average Retail price to commercial customers per US DOE at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html as of 9/25/2008. The reduction in floor space, power, cooling and software costs depends on the specific customer, environment, application requirements, and the consolidation potential. Actual numbers of virtualized systems supported will depend on workload levels for each replaced system.

** The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors: A performance factor of 1.7 was applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPEC results source: www.spec.org . Power 570 (32-core, 16 chips, 2 cores per chip, 4.2 GHz) SPECjbb2005 1,390,087 bops, 86,880 bops/JVM as of 10/7/2008; Sun SPARC Enterprise M8000 (64-core, 16 chips, 4 cores per chip) 2.52 GHz, SPECjbb2005 817,158 bops, 51,072 bops/JVM as of 9/25/2008. A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies conducted by Alinean available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. A factor of 2X was used to represent the ability to install two 32-core Power 570 systems in a single rack. Power consumption figures of 5600 W for the IBM Power 570 and 10,500 W for the Sun M8000 were based on the maximum rates published by IBM and Sun Microsystems, respectively. Air conditioning power requirement estimated at 50% of system power requirement. Energy cost of $.0971 per kWh is based on 2008 YTD US Average Retail price to commercial customers per US DOE at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html as of 9/25/2008. The reduction in floor space, power, cooling and software costs depends on the specific customer, environment, application requirements, and the consolidation potential. Actual numbers of virtualized systems supported will depend on workload levels for each replaced system.

2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power Systemsnotes on 39 for 1The number of Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 servers that a single IBM Power 595 server could replace was calculated based on SPECint_rate2006 results. The peak result for the M5000 is for a 2.4GHz system with 16 processors (chips) and 2 cores per chip. It has a result of 158. The M5000 result can be found at www.spec.org. It is current as of March 25, 2008. The IBM Power 595 server result is for a 5.0GHz system with 32 processor (chips) and 2 cores per chip. That result was submitted on April 8, 2008. It will also be posted on www.spec.org. It has a peak result of 2,080 users. Estimating cumulative capacity as the number of servers times the throughput result of a single server, the cumulative capacity of the 13 Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 servers is 13 times 158 users or 2,054. The capacity of the single Power 595 server is greater than the cumulative capacity of the 13 M5000 servers.

A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilizations derived from studies conducted by Alinean available at http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. That is; the utilization rate for the non-virtualized capacity of the M5000 server is estimated to be 20% and the utilization rate for the virtualized capacity of the Power 595 is estimated to be 60%. The used M5000 capacity is therefore estimated as 39*158 * 20% = 1,232.4. The Power 595 server used capacity is estimated as 2,080* 60% =1,248. Therefore the capacity of the Power 595 server at 60% is > than the cumulative capacity of the 39 M5000 servers at 20% utilization .

SPEC and the benchmark names SPECrate, SPECint, and SPECjbb are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org

** Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 server Maximum AC power consumption of 4,684 VA was sourced from Sun SPARC Enterprise M4000/M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide available at http://docs.sun.com/source/819-2205-10/Chap2_environ.html as of March 25, 2008. The IBM Power 595 server maximum power requirement is 27,700 VA.The savings from using the Power 595 were calculated by multiplying the M5000 maximum by 39 for a total of 182,676VA. The Power 595 server maximum requirement of 27,700 VA is 15.16% of the 182,676.

*** The Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 is a rack system. The calculation of floor space here was based on using .1 of Sun Rack 1000-42 for each M5000. The dimensions of the Sun Rack 1000-42 are 23.5 wide x 39.4 deep. They were sourced for the Sun Rack 1000-42 Tech Specs available at http://www.sun.com/servers/rack/1000-42/specs.xml#anchor1 as of March 25, 2008. The IBM Power 595 is 30.5 wide x 58.5 deep for a system with up to 3 I/O drawers.The savings from using the Power 595 were calculated by multiplying the M5000 floor space by 39 for a total of 62.69 square feet. The square footage for the Power 595 is 12.39 square feet which is 19.76% of 62.69.

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsSubstantiation:Notes: 1. Competitive benchmark results reflect results published as of September 12, 2008. The SPECint_rate2006 results can be found at www.spec.org. The Power 560 Express final publication will be Submitted on October, 7 2008. All systems were compared based on maximum processor configuration because that is the data point for which power requirements are defined. Other configurations of these systems could have better performance per WATT metrics. 2. SPEC and the benchmark names SPECrate, SPECint, and SPECjbb are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of October 6, 2008. The comparison presented above is based on the best performing 8-chip servers currently shipping by IBM, Sun, and HP respectively. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org.3. SPECint_rate2006 Peak/core results are:IBM Power 560 Express with 8 chips and 16 cores and two threads per core with a projected result of 363.Sun Microsystems Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 with 8 chips, 32 cores and 2 threads per core with a result of 264.HP Integrity rx7640 with 8 chips and 16 cores and 2 threads per core with a result of 2014. Performance per Watt is calculated by dividing the performance by the maximum system power.

5. Space for the Power 560 is 8 rack units. The Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 is 10 rack units. This information for the Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. HP integrity rx7640 is 10 rack units and specifications are available at http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12470_div/12470_div.PDF6, Performance per watt is calculated by dividing the performance in the table above by the recommended maximum power for site planning. Actual power used by the systems will be less than this value for all of the systems. This information for the Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. The power for the 560 is 2,400 WATTs. The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. The power requirement for the M5000 is 3,738 WATTS. HP integrity rx7640 is 2128 watts and specifications are available at http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12470_div/12470_div.PDFSource: http://www.spec.org/Power 560 Express POWER6 results will be submitted on October 7, 2008PRELIMINARY Power 560 BENCHMARK RESULTS Power 560 Performance and Efficiency Substantiation

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsCompetitive benchmark results reflect results published as of October 6, 2008. The SPECint_rate2006 results can be found at www.spec.org. The Power 560 Express final publication will be Submitted on October, 7 2008. All systems were compared based on maximum processor configuration because that is the data point for which power requirements are defined. Other configurations of these systems could have better performance per WATT metrics. SPEC and the benchmark names SPECrate, SPECint, and SPECjbb are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of October 7, 2008. The comparison presented above is based on a consolidation of a legacy 8-core Sun UltraSPARC IV servers into a 16 core IBM Power 560. For the latest SPEC benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org.SPECintRate_2006 Peak/core results are:POWER6: IBM Power 560 Express with 8 chips, and 16 cores @ 3.6 GHz and 2 threads per core with a projected result of 363.SPARC: Sun V490 with 4 chips, 8 cores @ 2.1GHz and 1 thread per core with a result of 78.*The virtualized system count and energy savings were derived from several factors: A performance factor of 4.6X was applied to the virtualization scenario based on SPECint_rate2006. Power 560 (16-core, 8 chips, 2 cores per chip, 3.6 GHz) 363, submitted on 10/07/2008; Sun Fire V490 (8-core, 4 chips, 2 cores per chip) 2.1 GHz, SPECint_rate2006 of 78. The performance factor is simply the SPECint_rate2006 result of the Power 560 Express divided by the result of the competitive Sun V490 server.A virtualization factor of 3X was applied to the virtualization scenario using utilization assumptions derived from an Alinean white paper on server consolidation. The tool assumes 19% utilization of existing servers and 60% utilization of new servers. Source - www.ibm.com/services/us/cio/optimize/opt_wp_ibm_systemp.pdf. Calculation Summary: the 560 to the Sun V490 performance ratio is 4.6 Multiply by 3 for the virtualization factor. Hence, 4.6 * 3 = 13.9 servers rounded to 13 V490 server can be consolidated into 1 560 server.The Sun V490 is 5U in height and 8 can fit into a 42U rack. The 560 is 8U in height and 5 560 systems can fit in a 42U rack.One 560 system is 16 cores per system. A Sun V490 has 8 cores per system. 13 systems multiplied by 8 cores is 104 cores. 92% more cores.Power consumption figures of 2400W for the IBM Power 560 and 1750W for the Sun Fire V490 were based on the maximum rates published by IBM and Sun Microsystems, respectively. This information for the 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. Sun Fire V490 Maximum AC power consumption of 1750 WATTs was sourced from Sun Fire V490/V890 Servers with UltraSPARC IV+, 2100MHz CPU/Memory Modules Supplement available at http://dlc.sun.com/pdf/820-0714-10/820-0714-10.pdf as of September, 2008. PRELIMINARY p550 BENCHMARK RESULTS Power 560 Consolidation Substantiation

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsPower 560 versus M5000 Consolidation Substantiation Power 560 Express Pricing: $140,955Power 560 Express Server, Includes 16 Core 3.6 GHz POWER6 Processors 64GB System Memory, 4 x 146 GB SAS Disk Drives, 1 DVD-ROM, 2 Gb Ethernet Ports, and 4 Power Supplies (220 V with N+N Redundancy)

Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 pricing: $181,340 + $64,000 (64GB of memory) = $245,340 times 4 servers = $981,360Sun Pricing: http://shop.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Sun_NorthAmerica-Sun_Store_US-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewConfigurations-List;pgid=tyL4UHemJpNSR08nlpFb_str0000crh3TBti;sid=anhg_kXDZHdg_Q0QzxYo-6pe3_pCFlSyC9jX-C_XKwbj_gYJOHk=?ProxyProductRefID=DUMMY3--HID-240460404@Sun_NorthAmerica-Sun_Store_US&CatalogCategoryID=hudIBe.dZb4AAAEUWEg5G_c2&ShowAllProducts=falseSun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server, Includes 8 Quad-Core 2.4 GHz SPARC64 VII Processors, 4 CPU Board with 2 CPUs each 5 MB On Chip L2 Cache, and 64 GB System Memory (4 Memory Modules with 8 x 2 GB DDR2 DIMMs), 4 x 146 GB SAS Disk Drives, 1 DVD-ROM, 4 Gb Ethernet Ports, 2 I/O Trays with 4 PCI-e and 1 PCI-X Slots, 4 Power Supplies (110 V or 220 V with N+N Redundancy), RoHS-5 Compliant Quantity 4 SELX2B1Z $ 16,000.00Sun SPARC Enterprise Server Memory Module, 8 x 2 GB DIMMs, 16 GB total memory, for SPARC Enterprise M4000 and M5000 servers, RoHS-5 Compliant Power Consumption: This information for the Power 560 is in "Model 8234-EMA server specifications" available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss - search for Power 560. The power for the 560 is 2,400 WATTs. The information for the Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server is in the "Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Servers Site Planning Guide" available at http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/m5000-hw. The power requirement for the M5000 is 3,738 WATTS. Actual power used by the systems will be less than this value for all of the systems. Four M5000 servers times 3,738 watts equals 14,952. 83% more power than one Power 560 at 2,400 Watts.

20% of Sun V490 SPECint_rate2006 of 78 is 15.6. 60% utilization of the SPARC enterprise M5000 using SPECintrate_2006 is 158.4. Hence, the M5000 using Solaris containers can support 10 Sun Fire V490 servers. It would require two M5000 servers to consolidate 13 V490s using Solaris containers.

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsComparing the best available results vs. POWERPOWER vs. Best Competitive ResultSources:http://www.spec.org http://www.tpc.org http://www.sap.com/benchmark/ http://performance.netlib.org/performance/html/PDSreports.html All results are as of 05/01/09TPC-C results with processor chip/core/thread.SPEComp results: IBM cores = 2x chip, threads = 4x chip.SAP certification numbers can be found in SAP section of charts.Linpack results are SMP only.

64-core (32/64/128) IBM Power 595 TPC-C result of 6,085,166 tpmC, $2.81/tpmC, avail. 12/10/08 64-core (32/64/128) Fujitsu Primequest TPC-C result of 2,382,032 tpmC, $3.76/tpmC, avail. 12/04/0832-core IBM p5-595 TPC-C result of 1,601,784 tpmC, $5.05/tpmC, avail. 04/20/0532-core (16/32/64) Fujitsu PQuest TPC-C result of 1,354,086 tpmC, $3.25/tpmC, avail. 11/22/0816-core (8/16/32) IBM Power 570 TPC-C result of 1,616,162 tpmC, $3.54/tpmC, avail. 11/21/0716-core (4/16/16) HP DL585 TPC-C result of 579,814 tpmC, $.96/tpmC, avail. 11/17/084-core (2/4/8) IBM Power 570 TPC-C result of 404,462 tpmC, $3.50/tpmC, avail. 11/26/074-core (2/4/8) HP rx6600 TPC-C result of 230,569 tpmC, $2.63/tpmC, avail. 12/01/06

Benchmarks# CoresGHzIBM SystemPOWER ResultSecond Place ResultPOWER Faster BySecond Place System (non-IBM)TPC-C 64-core645595 6,085,1662,382,032155%Fujitsu Primequest TPC-C 32-core321.90p5-5951,601,7841,354,08618.2%Fujitsu PQuestTPC-C 16-core164.75701,616,162579,814178.7%HP DL585TPC-C 4-core44.7570404,462230,56975.4%HP rx6600 SAP SD 3-tier Overall321.90p5-595168,300100,00068.3%HP Superdome 64-coreSAP SD 2-tier 16-core164.75708,000417091.8%Sun T5240SAP SD 2-tier 4-core44.75702,0351,21867.1%HP BL480cSAP SD 2-tier 2-core22.10p5-50568059713.9%HP ProLiant ML370 3.6 GHzOracle Apps Online 11.5.981.90p5-57015,004DNPOracle Apps. Std. Batch 11.5.981.90p5-5702,744,0002,664,0003.0%Fujitsu PrimePower 850 (16-core)SPECint_rate2000 4-core42.10p5-550 90.0123-26.8%Dell PowerEdgeSPECfp_rate2000 4-core42.10p5-550 14912123.1%Sun Ultra 40SPECint_rate2000 8-core82.20p5-5752002000%Dell PowerEdge/Fujitsu PrimergySPECfp_rate2000 8-core82.20p5-57538221478.5%Sun X4600 SPECint_rate2000 16-core161.90p5-57531428311%Fujitsu PrimePower SPECfp_rate2000 16-core161.90p5-57557137353.1%Bull NovaScale SPECint_rate2000 32-core321.65p5-590529537-1.5%Fujitsu PrimePower 1500SPECfp_rate2000 32-core321.65p5-59087076613.6%Fujitsu Primequest 480SPECint_rate2000 64-core642.30p5-595 1,513110836.6%HP Superdome (1.6 GHz)SPECfp_rate2000 64-core641.90p5-595 2,4061,25791.4%SGI Altix 3000SPECfp20061559524.916.947.3%HP rx6600SPECint_rate2006 8-core855502632601.1%Sun X2270SPECfp_rate2006 8-core8555022220011%Fujitsu RX300SPECsfs_R1.v3 SMP 82.20p5-570169,78666,235156.3%HP AlphaServer GS1280SPECjbb2005 16-core165570867,989758,32514.4%Tyan TX46

* 2009 IBM CorporationIBM Power SystemsComparing the best available results vs. POWERPOWER vs. Best Competitive ResultSources:http://www.spec.org http://www.tpc.org http://www.sap.com/benchmark/ http://performance.netlib.org/performance/html/PDSreports.html All results are as of 05/01/09TPC-C results with processor chip/core/thread.SPEComp results: IBM cores = 2x chip, threads = 4x chip.SAP certification numbers can be found in SAP section of charts.Linpack results are SMP only.

Benchmarks# CoresGHzIBM SystemPOWER ResultSecond Place ResultPOWER Faster BySecond Place System (non-IBM)Lotus NotesBench R6Mail 161.65i5-595175,000120,00045.8%8 2-way HP ProLiant BL20pLotus NotesBench D7 R6iNotes 161.8p5-560Q55,00043,00027.9%Sun T5120SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 2-core23.8JS1212,8857,61269.2%Sun Fire X4200SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 4-core44.2520 20,44313,81747.9%Sun V40zSPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 8-core84.255040,77323,22475.5%Sun Fire X8420SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) 16-core164.757094,35025,932263%HP AlphaServer GS1280SPEC OMPM2001 (peak) Overall645595 242,116104,71488.8%Sun/Fujitsu M8000SPEC OMPL2001 base (64-core)642.30p5-5951,005,583532,57698.1%Sun/Fujitsu M8000LINPACK HPC 2-core21.90p5-52014.3112.0518.8%HP rx1620 (1.6 GHz)LINPACK HPC 4-core44.75206521.71199.4%HP rx5670LINPACK HPC 8-core85550137.648.55183.4%HP rx6600LINPACK HPC 16-core165570277.788.8212.7%HP rx8620LINPACK HPC 32-core324.7575500268.686.1%Fujitsu/Sun M9000LINPACK HPC 64-core6455951050342207%HP Superdome

Today I want to take you through a presentation on the advantage of IBM Power Systems and how we compare to some of the HP, Dell, Sun and other X86 choices that you might have.

So we'll run through the information here and hopefully demonstrate to you that we think IBM Power Systems is, continues to be the best choice that you have for not only UNIX but also the consolidation platform for a lot of your X86 systems as well.Let's start by looking at what we see out in the market from a share standpoint. This is a rolling four quarter average revenue share chart, and it's been our favorite chart for several years now because you can see Power really back in the late 1990s and early 2000s was in a number three position just as the dot-com boom was starting. And then we made a major investment in POWER4 and virtualization on Power in the way of logical partitioning.

And that started a rise now that's continued for some seven to eight or nine years actually as we've gone from POWER4 to POWER5 in 2004, and we introduced Advanced Power Virtualization which today is known as PowerVM. And then in 2007, we introduced POWER6 with live partition mobility, and just continued to add not only to the performance...

...but functionality of the virtualization, the maintenance capabilities, the other reliability, availability, serviceability characteristics of this system. And we've continued on this upward trend as our competitors have stumbled.

And we'll talk a little bit about their roadmaps and some of the reasons we think that you'll continue to see the general trend line of those competitive curves go downward and our curve continue to go upward.And so let's look at what are the factors that drive Power Systems growth. And we think that you'll see it in three areas. First of all, we've got excellent leadership in being able to scale systems both upward out, as well as scaling within with our virtualization.

And that obviously requires virtualization leadership, and so we'll talk about what we think our position is from a virtualization standpoint and why we think we have some of the best virtualization capabilities in the UNIX and X86 space.

Obviously System/z is the gold standard for virtualization, and has industry virtualization leadership but aside from System/z, we'll show you why we think Power is the best choice then for UNIX and X86 applications.

And then finally, we'll show why a lot of our UNIX and X86 users are moving to Power and how they're leveraging IBM expertise, programs like Power Rewards and other tools that IBM offers to help them move to Power and I'll give you a couple of examples of folks that are doing that now.So let's start first of all with how Power scales up and why we think we have leadership in not only scale up but scale out and scale within computing. We've got over four decades at IBM for running the largest, most mission critical apps that our customers have.

Starting back with the mainframe, a lot of the people we designed those mainframe systems are the same people who have been working in Power Systems for the last several years, building in many of those mainframe inspired characteristics and bringing them into the UNIX space.

And this has resulted in unmatched scalability, performance, the RAS characteristics I talked about, as well as the manageability that our systems have which really isn't matched in the X86 space. When you start talking about 8 to 64 core systems and now you ever hear Intel's talking about the Nehalem systems that will stretch up to even 16 and 32 sockets, those are scale up computers and they require virtualization to get the most in utilization out of them.

And this is a place where other X86 vendors are simply untested. You've got to bring a lot of different pieces together to make these systems all scale and virtualize they way you expect them. And what we'll try to show you is why we think Power does that better than anybody else in either the UNIX space or the X86 space.And so, let's first of all start with what's Intel saying about their processor load? This is from a blog that was posted in June by Intel that talks about a monster chip coming and how it's got the highest cores and threads count than any Xeon they've ever had, the largest shared cache, the highest bandwidth, the highest I/O bandwidth, memory capacity, et cetera. And it's the biggest leap in all of Xeon product history.

So we took the numbers that Intel provided for the Xeon 5500 -- which is also known as the Nehalem EP, it's the two socket processor -- and how that compares to its predecessor product. And then we also took the numbers that they shared for what is going to be called the Xeon 7500, otherwise known as Nehalem EX. This is the new Nehalem processor that will go into systems with four or more sockets. And they're recently claiming they'll be able to go up to 32 sockets potentially with the Xeon 7500.

So they published some comparisons of that processor against Xeon 7400, also known as Dunnington. You see on the chart at the right there how they sort of compared the benchmarks here.And so we took a lot of that data and we also know how Power configures to the Xeon 7400, and this gave us a way to show some comparisons, potentially against the Xeon 7500, as well as today's existing Xeon 5500 that is in the market. The Xeon 7500 by the way or Nehalem EX isn't expected to ship until 2010, but this two socket processor is available today in systems from various vendors.

So we started with TPC, Transaction Processing Performance. And the first point that we want to make is that all of the benchmarks you're going to see from Power are virtualized benchmarks run in a virtualized environment with the hypervisor present and running. Almost all of the benchmarks that we've seen this far from a Xeon perspective are native bare metal benchmarks without a hypervisor and without any virtualization running.

And as we'll show you later, that we have data that's in the marketplace that demonstrates that there's a fairly significant performance penalty on X86 once you introduce the hypervisor. And we'll show that to you later.

But starting here, we'll just show you these TPC benchmarks and this is the first one of a three year old System P570 that was published in July of 2007...sorry, May of 2007. And then of course that system has already been replaced with a newer 5 gigahertz system, this was a 4.7 gigahertz system that we got over 100,000 transactions per core, transactions per minute, per core from this 570.

The new benchmark published this year in 2009 by HP on a Proliant DL370 which is a Nehalem EP or Xeon 5500 processor showed that the best they could get not in a virtualized environment, in the native environment was just under 79,000 transactions per minute, per core or 28 percent less than what we published on POWER6 nearly over two years ago.

And so this is a huge difference in performance, not only if it was both native performance but when you take into account the fact that the Power number is virtualized and that the Xeon number is native and it's going to have to be reduced in a virtualized environment, you'll see even larger difference than a 28 percent difference that we show here. So that's the first thing.And the performance in a database environment isn't the only difference where you're going to see performance differences between Xeon and Power. And so what we're going to do is look at database transactions, we'll look at integer throughput, as well as floating point throughput for the Xeon 5500, which is the two socket Nehalem, Xeon 7500 which will be in purple, that's the four socket and above. We also will look at Itanium and this is the existing current Itanium processors in HP's Integrity line. And then, of course, POWER6.And what we just showed you from a database standpoint, if you take that and normalize it to one for Xeon 5500, you'll see that the per core performance of the Xeon 7500 coming next years, projected by Intel to be something on the order of about 20 to 25 percent less than what Xeon 5500 does. If you compare that to Itanium you'll see that Itanium is about 40 percent of what the Xeon 5500 does today.

And then if you look at POWER6, the POWER6 system's best benchmark per core on database transaction that we just showed you is 28 percent better than Xeon's 5500 benchmark that they have out there right now. So the three year old POWER6 beats the brand new 2010 Nehalem systems as projected by Intel.

So now let's look at integer throughput. Again, if you set the two socket Nehalem to one, you get this kind of number. The four socket and above Nehalem is going to be just at about 60 to 70 percent of that performance per core. So again, a lower number per core and that's projected by Intel. Itanium is again lower than that today. And POWER6 surpasses the two socket Xeon number with the current benchmarks that we have out there for POWER6.

And then finally on floating point, you said Xeon 5500 to one you get that. The Xeon 7500 is projected to be nearly half that performance per core on floating point. Itanium is again below that. And POWER6 surpasses that number by about 40 percent versus the Xeon 5500.

So across the board, POWER6 continues to have better performance today than the new Nehalem EP and significantly better per core performance than was projected by Intel for the Nehalem EX next year.Now, let's look at scalability, because performance alone doesn't tell the story, you also need to have the ability to scale. And so if you look at database transactions, integer throughput and floating point throughput and set the two socket Nehalem processor, a Xeon 5500 to one, you'll see that the four socket systems, of course, will scale a little bit higher when you have eight cores per socket versus four cores per socket.

Plus you can go up to four sockets which is what we've assumed here, this doesn't assume the new information that has them going all the way up to 32 sockets potentially. But even here you'll see that with four sockets there's some additional performance. Itanium does a little bit better in this category because it can go all the way up to 128 cores today.

You have more scalability in aggregate than you have on either of the X86 systems. But when you look at a 64 core POWER6 system, you'll see that in every instance we surpass what is offered with the Intel processor based systems by a significant margin in scalability. And this is what really is important, of course, when you're looking to grow applications in a single system image and you really need that capability to go as large as you can in that single image. So that's the scalability piece.But there's a lot of characteristics that make that scalability possible. And it's a point that we want to make that's very critical, it's about the system and the system's design and not just the chip. Intel talks a lot about what their processor can do and how higher end CPUs make a difference in the TCO. And we agreed with them in their Xeon 5500 presentations where they say that higher end CPUs and more performance can reduce your total cost of ownership. We agree completely.

And so let's look at what makes that higher performance and the higher scalability possible. We think it's the balanced systems design and the fact that you can have the processor with the hypervisor with the design in the system, the operating system all working together to give you a better overall scalability and performance.

If you look at memory, on the HP DL370 you can get up to 18 gigabytes per core. On Itanium you can do 16 gigabytes per core. On the Power 595 you can go all the way up to 64 gigabytes per core which is important in a virtualized environment. It's very important when you're running SAP applications. You need that memory for core to get the most out of the processor.

You also have to be able to feed the memory content into the processor. So the memory bandwidth is important. And on a Nehalem processor you've got about 4.8 gigabytes per second, on Itanium about 4.3, where on the Power processor on Power 595, you get 21.5 gigabytes per second of memory bandwidth.

Same for I/O. You have to be able to get information in and out of I/O. With Nehalem you're at about 2.4 gigabytes per second. With Itanium at 1.3. With Power 595 you're at 10, or almost four times what you can do on any of the Nehalem systems.

And finally on cache, this is important as well. Here you've got 2.25 megabytes per core of cache for the DL370. Itanium does a little bit better here with 12 megabytes per core of cache.

But again, the Power 595 is the best on POWER6 with 20 megabytes per core of cache to continue to make sure that the processor's fed and that you don't get system limits that prevent you from making use of those higher end processors that you can have in these systems. And all of that systems design, again, contributed to the near linear scalability that you see in our systems.And so what we're going to do here is take a look at an SAP two tier SD benchmark and we'll look at each of these different core counts and hopefully show you at the end how, where the IBM systems have basically linear scalability from the lowest core count up to the highest core count. You'll see declining scalability on HP and Sun.

So, let's start with the four core servers where you see how the four core Power 570 with a three year old result of over 500 users per core on SAP compares to the HP RX2660 which in an Itanium system and the Sun M3000 which is a SPARC 64 base system. If you look at the eight core servers, you'll again see how the Power 550 which is at a lower frequency here, 4.2 gigahertz, still outperforms both the Sun Niagara based system and another Itanium based system from HP.

The 16 core system here on the chart is the 570, 4.7 gigahertz. So again, a little bit higher frequency than the 500, but again very consistent with over 500 users per core just as we had at four cores. On the 32 core servers, you see the Superdome that Sun M8000 and the 570 32 at 4.2 gigahertz, again, slightly lower frequency than the 16 and four core 570s we showed here. So if these were all normalized in the same frequency, again you'd be seeing near linear scalability.

As you go to the 64 core servers, you see the five gigahertz Power 595 show up with its massive 553 users per core, again a little bit higher frequency than the 570s up top. And then you look at the 128 core Superdome and the 256 core Sun systems and what you start to see if you just draw a line from the lowest core count at the top to the highest core count at the bottom for Sun, you see this general declining trend of performance as you get to the higher core counts and scalability.

And if you do the same thing for HP, again, you see this general declining trend. And then if you do that for IBM, you see almost near linear scalability, particularly if all of the five results there were normalized to the same frequency you would see almost perfect linear scalability between them. And so it's that balanced systems design that allows you to continue to grow the system and get more performance out of the system as you continue to add cores.All right. How do we do from a reliability and availability standpoint? This is a survey from ITIC that was reported in Network World in July, so a fairly brand new survey. They talked to something like 400 IT executives and just asked the simple question of, how much unplanned downtime did you have on different systems? And they didn't look at mainframes, they didn't look at i, but they did look at the UNIX systems, Linux systems and Windows.

And the results of that were that the AIX Power Systems only had 15 minutes a year of downtime which was the best in the survey by far. It was twice the, 2.3 times better than the closest UNIX competitor and more than 10 times better than Windows. They had less than one outage per year on average on AIX and POWER and it only took 11 minutes to apply a patch which is the fastest patch time of anything that they looked at.The best UNIX competitor to compare to AIX was HP UX on PA Risk and more than 30 minutes of unplanned downtime per year. HP UX Integrity was a little bit more than that. And then, x86 Windows did improve this year, they were over nine hours of downtime last year when they ran the survey. This year, they're still at about three hours, something over three hours of unplanned downtime.

And everybody's familiar obviously with the blue screen of death and that's what gets reflected here, the time to take the systems down to apply patches during the year. And you simply don't have to do that on an AIX system. So, a huge reliability advantage here, delivering 99.997 percent uptime on average through the year.Okay. So you look at that and you say, well, is it the RAS characteristics of integrity that would cause me to continue to buy that versus x86? Well that's what Intel said last year when they brought out the Dunnington six core process, Xeon processors. They said that despite the significant performance gains of the Xeons that the Itanium systems continue to add the RAS characteristics that would cause you to buy an Itanium server.

Well, now, in May of this year, they're saying that Nehalem EX will add many of the RAS characteristics that had traditionally been found only on the Itanium process such as machine check architecture recovery. So you got to ask yourself, why would anyone buy an Itanium based server? And if you look at some of these RAS characteristics they're talking about something like MCA is very much like the error correcting memory that we introduced in POWER4 back in 2001.

And in fact, it's not quite as robust as that because ECC memory would correct on the fly in the hardware whereas MCA simply identifies that there's about to be an issue with the hardware and hands it up to the operating system to handle the issue. And so again here on an x86 system you're going to be handing the issue back up to Windows and expecting Windows to deal with and we all just saw how reliable that can be.Lets look at some of the RAS characteristics you have on these systems. On POWER6, you see a very robust column there of a lot of different RAS capabilities that you simply don't find on SPARC or the HP Integrity systems, and you certainly don't find them in most of the Xeon x86 systems that are out there.

And so this is a very telling chart that really starts to paint the picture of what mainframe class -- as Intel likes to describe their RAS characteristics -- may mean. And even this if you put the mainframe on here again there's a much longer list of RAS characteristics on the System z mainframe than anything you see here. The POWER6 systems clearly demonstrate the best RAS characteristics of any of the choices in the UNIX or x86 space.

Now, having RAS capabilities is obviously very important, but you also need to able to manage the systems. And if you just look across the IBM customer base for example, over two-thirds of our customers have a mix of architectures in their environment. They have z, they have POWER and they have x86. Even more beyond that, have just UNIX and x86 or they may have z and x86 or z and POWER for example.So just managing an x86 only environment isn't enough. And so that's why with our Systems Director we have really focused on doing platform and virtualization management across all of the IBM systems, being able to consolidate that management on one pane of glass, consolidate the management across the servers, the networks and the storage and integrate physical and virtual management, again, in one tool with systems director.

And then we work hand in hand with our colleagues at Tivoli to provide an integrated, seamless management environment that takes platform management and feeds all of that information up into the service management that you do across your enterprise...

...so that you can align what you're doing with your IT operations, with your business goals, set business policies to govern much of what you do across the systems, and really have a unified, integrated service management environment across physical and virtualized resources.

This management capability is really kind of the last of the characteristics that we wanted to cover that I think demonstrates why Power Systems has scale up, scale out and scale within leadership across all of these systems. You've seen the scalability, you've seen the performance that we have versus Nehalem, for example, the RAS characteristics are the best in the industry in the UNIX and x86 space, and we've got the glue that lets you take all that capability and turn it into service.In summaryPower Systems has the experience that lets you get predictable, consistent performance out of your systems because customers tell us they really want to have that steady, assured performance so that they know that when they need the performance they can call on it and it'll be there. All right, that's number one.Now, let's go to number two, the virtualization leadership. It just so happens that this year, 2009, we're celebrating 10 years of power virtualization that started on i platforms on POWER in 1999, carried forward into what were called the pSeries systems then in 2004, when we introduced that into the...I'm sorry 2001, when we introduced that in UNIX space. And we've continued to build on it as I showed you earlier.

We do this virtualization, providing our customers with a choice of consolidating within an operating environment, within a single operating image, with capabilities like workload partitions on AIX. Or consolidating multiple operating environments either across multiple AIX systems or AIXi and Linux all on a single Power System.

All of our applications always run in a virtualized environment. Even if you have one partition on the system, the hypervisor is there and you're in a virtualized environment. And all of the benchmarks that we've shown you in the past are in that type of environment. So it's very low overhead virtualization.

The scalability is there to let you run a wide a variety of applications and it's very manageable. Let's hit all of these systems pieces because we think we'll show you how this again differentiates power virtualization from what is just still developing on the x86.

It's been maybe four or five years now that you've really started to see virtualization developing on x86, and it's dependent, as I said earlier. on pieces from multiple vendors. You've got to have a processor from Intel, the systems design from whether it's HP, Dell, Sun or others, the operating system from Microsoft of one of the Linux distributions.

You've got to have the virtualization from VMware for Microsoft or again open source distribution. And you've got to have the management then from any number of vendors and you've got to hope that all of those pieces line up and work together because otherwise you're going to be the ones doing the integration with it.

Now okay so let's start by looking at the challenge of scale out computing. One of the things that customers really have to look at when they're looking at scaling out is that they typically are going to be running a single application on each computer and that each of those computers are going to be less than 20 percent utilized.

And they also have to buy the systems where you are planning to grow, and so you typically plan on about 20 percent for growth. You have to plan for peaks, and so there's about 50 percent that you have to plan for there. And then because of the memory bandwidth and the I/O bandwidth often has the system waiting, there's about 20 percent inefficiency that you get from that.

So what you end up seeing is that you're paying for the entire system but what you're getting is only about that 20 percent of average utilization. And so 80 percent of the hardware, software, maintenance, floor space, energy, all of the different things that you have to pay for for all those scale out systems is effectively wasted.

And after all, why is it that you want to look at consolidation? It's so that you can take all of those scale out systems potentially, reduce the amount of floor space, reduce the amount of energy and software that you're paying for on them and consolidate those on to a single system. And that's why the scalability is important because that's what allows you to reduce cost.

And the number one reason IT managers deploy virtualization is for workload consolidation. And very simply the way you get the greater cost reductions is the more workloads that you can put on more virtual machines and on to a single server, the more you'll be able to reduce your cost.

And the ability of the power architecture, the power processors with PowerVM gives you much more scalability and lets you get much higher utilization than you can out of, for example, an x86 system with VMware's VSphere.

And so let's just look at how some of these things compare in terms of the virtualized environment between PowerVM and VMware. So first of all, let's look at just the basic capabilities that PowerVM has in terms of scalability. If you're running on VMware ESX3.5 today or the VMware infrastructure product, you're limited to four virtual CPUs per virtual machine.

So that means as long as your workload can fit within four CPUs or less, then you're okay. If you need more than four CPUs, you're going to have a problem on ESX 35. If you need more than 64 gigabytes of memory per virtual machine, then you're going to hit a limit. Or if you have more than four network adaptors you need per virtual machine, you'll hit limits.

You can only have a physical server with ESX3.5 of up to 32 cores, and so you can't virtualize more than a 32 core servers, and each virtual machine on that server can only have four CPUs. And you can only have 256 gigabytes of memory per physical server.

Now, things do improve a bit in VSphere 4 or ESX4.0 in that if you buy the enterprise edition of that, you can go up to eight virtual CPUs per virtual machine now, you can have up to 255 gigabytes of memory per virtual machine. You can have more network cards with 10, up to 64 CPUs per server so they're planning for Nehalem EX and the ability to have eight socket servers of up to 64 cores and up to a terabyte of memory on that physical server.

But then you look at what you can do with PowerVM. In PowerVM, we're not limited to four or eight cores per virtual machine, you can use the entire 64 core POWER6 system for one virtual machine if you want to, which is exactly what we've done every time we've done a benchmark like TPCC benchmarks we've published, the SAP benchmarks we've published. We typically have those configured as a single virtual machine running on top of the Power hypervisor which is always there and present.

We can have up to the entire system capability of memory per virtual machine, so up to four terabytes of memory can be allocated to a single virtual machine or you can share that across multiple virtual machines. You can have up to 256 virtual network cards per virtual machine, and as I said, up to 64 CPUs per virtual server which is the limitation of today's Power 595.

And so you have a lot more scalability per virtual machine, as well as a much larger machine that you can virtualize with PowerVM versus what you have with VSphere for example.

Now, let's look at, what's the impact of that? The scalability of the virtual CPUs is an important point. With VSphere, as I said, you can have no more than eight virtual CPUs in any single virtual machine and so that limits the size of the workload that you can have. And that option is only available on the high end enterprise plus edition of VSphere.

And even if you only have one virtual CPU in a virtual machine that's being used, rather than shutting down the other seven as we do in PowerVM to save the capacity there and get the most benefit out of the one virtual CPU that you might have...

It takes that one virtual CPU's worth of work and spreads it across all eight virtual CPUs assigned to the virtual machine in VMware creating a lot of context switching and a lot of overhead that you have to live with in a VMware system.

And as we note here, even if you have more than eight physical cores on the system, you can't use all of those in a single virtual machine if you need to or you have an immediate demand where you need that capacity.

Whereas under PowerVM, you can immediately grab all of the processors on the system if you so desire to have that virtual machine have access to the entire system. Each virtual CPU can run two threads and so you can have up to 128 threads per virtual machine. So you get a much more effective solution where you have CPU intensive workloads that you want to virtualize.

Now, let's look at the dynamic resource capabilities of PowerVM versus VMware. This is a very important capability that PowerVM provides that really, again, lets you get the most out of sharing things like memory or I/O devices, network cards, storage adaptors.

And it's also very important in being able to move resources between virtual machines as workloads vary. And so, for example, on VMware 3.5 you basically have no dynamic capability. If you change the characteristics of any virtual machine you have to reboot the virtual machine in order to get additional CPU or additional memory.

Now, they did improve that in VMware ESX4 and VSphere where you can add virtual CPU and you can add memory to a virtual machine without rebooting, but you can't remove it. So if you now need those CPUs for that memory for another virtual machine where there's more demand, you can't take it away from the one that you assigned it to, you have to have it available from somewhere else in the system be able to move to a different system.

You do have some direct access on Nehalem systems. And across both when you use VMotion to do live migrations, you're limited to doing four of those at a time with VMware. In contrast, on PowerVM you can always add or remove memory, CPU, I/O devices dynamically to any virtual machine as you need to while the systems running, while the virtual machine is running without restarting it. And you have up to eight live migrations going at a time with PowerVM versus what you can do with VMware at four.

And so these are very important capabilities that, again. lets you get much more utilization out of your resources because you have a much broader range of capability and being able to move those resources dynamically without having to stop and restart the virtual machines.

Now, one other point that I wanted to drive home one more time is again this performance notion. Every Power Systems benchmark published since we launched POWER5 in July, 2004, has been published in a virtualized environment with the hypervisor active. And that's over 70 leadership benchmarks just in the last five years that we published.

So you see here this is a sample chart from our benchmark index which is available out on the Web. And you can see exactly how we compare. All of those long blue lines are the leadership IBM Power benchmarks that often are being compared against, again, benchmarks running in native environments that aren't virtualized and don't have any of the overhead virtualization accounted for.

So I would encourage you that any time you're looking at benchmark from a competitor like HP or Sun or on an x86, ask if that performance number was run in a virtualized environment because if that's how you're going to run the systems in a virtualized environment, then you need to look at that performance characteristic.

Let me just hit quickly here about manageability one more time. In VSphere, a lot of people like to use VCenter obviously to manage VMware, but it's limited to an x86 only subset of your infrastructure. And very few of our customers have x86 only infrastructures, they have other systems in their infrastructure.

And Systems Director from IBM in contrast is designed to run not only across Power with AIXI and Linux, but you can also manage Linux x86 workloads that may be running on Linux on Power using the PowerVM LX86 capability, as well as System Director obviously can manage System x machines where they're running VMware, ZIN, HyperV, KDM, PowerVM or ZVM virtualized workloads with VM control.

These tools with Systems Director and PowerVM really scale to support your most demanding, mission critical workloads which after all is what is really important if those workloads need to be up and running and cost you a lot of money when you have even a few minutes of downtime of those workloads. And so that's what we try to avoid here.

Now, let's look one more time at [how scale within] a virtualization can simplify your data center, because this is another major cost savings that you can achieve when you virtualize with PowerVM. If you spread your workloads in a scale out environment across multiple servers, each of those servers need dedicated network adapters, they need dedicated storage adapters such as fiber channel adapters...

And then you have a lot of connections from those systems to the different SAN switches and out to the farms, and you're going to have more switches, more network switches, more SAN switches. And several of our customers have started to realize that just that networking and storage adapter and switch infrastructure can be 30 or 40 percent of their total IT bill.

In contrast, using these dynamic resource sharing capabilities of PowerVM, you can use the V I/O server to share network and storage adapters across multiple partitions, dramatically reducing the number of physical adapters you have to have, the number of cables that you have, the number of points of failure that you might have, as well as the number of switches that you then need to connect to, which can dramatically reduce that bill that you have that's a major part of your IT infrastructure costs.

And so that's a key capability of PowerVM in allowing you to share the resources, dynamically move those to the partitions that need them, and really get the most utilization out of fewer resources, dramatically simplifying your data center.

So those are a lot of the characteristics that really gives the leadership characteristics to Power virtualization. And only PowerVM really lets you completely virtualize your entire data center: your servers, the storage, the networking capabilities -- because it's not really about just virtualizing the servers; it's about virtualizing everything, so that you really have the most flexibility in getting the maximum utilization for your large workloads

We build in virtualization, again, with every system. And the benchmarks we publish are in a virtualized environment so you get the performance that you expect when you buy the system and you see the benchmarks.The infrastructure is really designed for virtualization so that you have the bandwidth you need to be able to support large virtualized workloads and virtualized environments, and we give you the manageability that you need across not only AIXI and Linux on Power, but also across your z and x systems so that you can manage all of those from within a single management system.

And so really the bottom line here is that for over 10 years, Power Systems has been fine tuning highly integrated systems that are designed from the ground up for industrial strength virtualization.

Now, we think that between the scale up, scale within, scale out leadership that we have, and the virtualization leadership that we have, that is why you're seeing SPARC, PA RISC, Itanium and now x86 users moving to Power -- because combined with those leadership characteristics you see the migration expertise that IBM has in helping you move to power and the dependable roadmap that we offer so that you know exactly what you're going to get in the future from IBM, are key reasons why we see customers moving to Power.

And with recent changes in the marketplace as we've seen SPARC continue to decline, as we've seen Itanium continue to decline, UNIX clients are likely to have two major choices: Power or x86. And so that's one of the reasons we've been showing you how Power compares to those x86 characteristics, because we think that that may be what you end up having to look at.

Now, what kind of expertise do we have in moving customers to Power? Here's a chart that shows you that over the last three years, we've had more than 1,750 Migration Factory wins where we have customers moving from either Sun or HP systems to Power utilizing our Migration Factory services. And that's just a portion of the total migrations that we have to Power, come from other programs or other partners that we may be using. This is just through the Migration Factory program.

And we've seen 89 percent of the migrations in the Migration Factory coming from Sun and HP, and just in the last couple of quarters, in 2009, we've seen dramatic increase in the number of migrations that we're starting to see from HP and from Sun with Sun almost doubling quarter to quarter from first quarter to second quarter as obviously there's been a lot of change in the industry as customers wait to see what's going to happen with Sun and the pending acquisition from Oracle.

And so this really is a testament to the expertise that IBM has in moving hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of customers from Sun and HP over to Power and making that happen all very smoothly.

Now, why do they do that? They do that because you can bring all of these characteristics together: the virtualization, the performance, the manageability, and see huge savings as you consolidate.

Many of the Sun customers we've worked with, for example, still have ultra SPARC equipment like the Sun V890, most of which are running single applications, most of which are being utilized at 20 percent utilization or less, and they want to know, how can I consolidate those into something that's going to be much more powerful and take up a lot less space?

Here's an example where you can take 34 Sun V890s, they're using 544 cores of software, over 109 square feet of floor space, and up to 1,442 megawatt hours of energy annually, and reduce that into one rack of Power 570s that you can run at 60 percent utilization or even higher, reduce 544 cores of software down to 64 cores, in one rack, taking a little over seven square feet of floor space. And, save up to 1,300 megawatt hours annually, which translates to nearly $200,000 in energy savings alone per year for this customer.

Now, you might say, well, that's old V890 equipment. What do you do with new SPARC 64 equipment? Well, let's look at that. If you take what you can do with the Sun M5000, for example, here's 39 non-virtualized SPARC M5000s that again are probably running single applications at 20 percent capacity or less, and consolidate those into one IBM Power 595...

Reduce the energy use by up to 84 percent, save up to 80 percent of the floor space, and use just over 1/10th of the cores of software that you may be paying for today, and see significant savings here.

Even if you were virtualizing these servers with, for example, Solaris containers -- a very rudimentary form of virtualization on these systems, even if you cut that in half and you doubled the utilization, still a significant savings in moving to a single Power 595.

Now, you might say, okay, well, how does it compare going to Power versus moving from older ultra SPARC hardware to the new Sun hardware? Well, so here's another example where a customer might have 13 V490s, and have a couple of choices. They can go to a Power 560, one 8U Power 560 Express. That has a list price in the United States of just over $140,000. And they could go there, and use one-fifth the rack space.

The alternative is to move to Sun M5000s, and where you have to have at least four of those, because M5000s support no more than four dynamic domains per system, so to virtualize those enough to run all 13 V490s you'd have to have four systems and a list price of over $980,000 U.S., and requiring basically a full rack.

Now, even, again, if you use Solaris containers, you'd still have to have two M5000s at nearly $500,000 U.S., list price for those systems. So, significantly more expensive to go from V490s to new Sun systems than it is to go to a single Power 560.

All right, now, just to show you that this isn't a theoretical exercise, here's a couple of examples of customers who are doing this. Here's one example of a company called Energen, which is an energy company that took their SAP infrastructure, consolidated it from a 20-unit Sun server environment and consolidated it down to two IBM Power 570s.

They estimate that they saw nearly $500,000 in annual savings by migrating to IBM from the Sun environment they were on, and reduced their Oracle licensing costs by up to 40 percent. And so, they were very pleased with the move they made working with an IBM Business Partner, Mainline Information Systems, in how they did the migration, in how smoothly and efficiently everything ran when they did the migration of their SAP system from Sun to IBM.

Now, speaking of SAP, a lot of SAP application servers are a critical part of any SAP landscape, and many customers have started asking, well, why wouldn't I run my SAP application servers on x86?

If you look at the typical SAP landscape here, you get a database server with typically at least three application servers, and most SAP landscapes have a dev environment for that -- a development environment -- a test environment, a QA environment, and then you have the production environment.

And so you have multiple operational stages per system, and what we've seen then over the years is that as customers implement more and more SAP, they get more landscapes, they're running more jobs, they have more users, then that has created an explosion in the number of application servers that they have within their SAP landscapes.

Customers are typically up to as many as 14 landscapes now that they may have. Doing eight upgrades a year, running over 400 batch jobs, and they may have over 3,000 users, in somebody's SAP landscape. So, this can get to be a very complex environment.

We've got customers such as Osram Sylvania, that looked at that type of environment and said, we can't afford that anymore. And they made the decision to replace 50 legacy HP Alpha systems -- since there was no longer support for Alpha from HP -- as well as many Windows application servers running SAP applications, and consolidate those down to IBM Power Systems.

And they were able to cut their batch times by a factor of five so they got much more performance out of the fewer Power Systems. They got better user response times, they were cut in half. Their service to the business was dramatically improved. And of course, because they do this on fewer Power servers, they lowered their administration costs, the maintenance costs, energy, cooling and their software licensing costs across those systems.

So, another great story and another example of why customers really should be looking at running their SAP servers on Power, oftentimes on the same virtualized system where they may have their SAP back in the database. You get some performance benefits that way, you get management benefits. And so it's really an option that more and more customers are taking advantage of.

Now, another place where x86 starts to have issues against Power is when you scale up. zappos.com is one of the fastest-growing businesses on the Internet, growing from zero business in 1999 as a startup to over a billion dollars a year last year in 2008.

They did that growing on the Power platform. They started on x86 white box servers running Linux, and quickly saw that as their business started to grow they couldn't scale their systems as quickly as they needed to or to the levels that they needed to in an x86 environment.

So they put in an IBM Power 570 and started growing on that, and been able to grow from about $100 million or $200 million in business once they put in the 570 up to a billion dollars on that 570, and now they're starting to also add POWER6 systems and use live partition mobility to have even higher uptime as they can move things around and do maintenance without ever taking the applications down. So this is a great story for zappos, using Linux on POWER on Power Systems.

So as we've shown you, we've got a lot of SPARC, PA RISC, Itanium and x86 users moving to POWER, taking advantage of our migration expertise, of the POWER Rewards to offset the migration costs, this is a program where the more you retire off of SPARC or Itanium or x86...non-IBM x86s, the more you can use, get in points to use against the migration costs that it might take to move to Power.

We've got a proven, dependable roadmap. We've been introducing systems almost every three years since we started introducing POWER with POWER4 in 2001, POWER5 in 2004, we did POWER6 in 2007, and as we've already announced, you'll be seeing POWER7 next year in 2010.

And so we've got a roadmap that customers can count on. We've got customers demonstrating that they can get high utilization and maximum consolidation out of those systems, which really means we're the best choice for UNIX users. And clients, the bottom line is clients trust the migration experience and the capability that Power Systems has demonstrated to handle their toughest workloads.

Were expert in scale up and scale within computing. Our virtualization is years ahead of any x86 or UNIX alternative. And clients trust the migration expertise and the POWER roadmaps that we have, and that's why you see so many users moving from other platforms to IBM Power Systems.

So, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much for listening to the presentation. And if you have any questions about any of the numbers, you can download the file and look at the different information that's at the back of the file here on the substantiation for each of the benchmarks [in total]

the advantage of ibm power systems.ppt

Documents

power performance

power systems growth

detailpower systems

core performance

tpccthe latest power

balanced systems design

highest memory bandwidth

highest cpu