SPEC CPU2006 SPECfp_rate_base performance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and 3 AS Intel-based servers We tested three servers: a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server.
SPECjbb2005 performance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and 3 AS Intel-based servers We tested three servers: a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server.
SPEC CPU2006 SPECint_rate_base performance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and 3 AS Intel-based servers We tested three servers: a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server.
Linpack performance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and 3 AS Intel-based servers We testedthree servers: a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server.
We gave the following presentation at Fall IDF in San Francisco on September 19, 2007:
Comparative performance test Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 AS on Intel-based servers We tested three servers, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 server on a Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor 7140M-based (3.4 GHz) server, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3 guest on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server, and a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1 server on a Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor X7350-based (2.93 GHz) server on three different workloads. .
Go to more server reports>
Responsiveness of Windows Vista and Windows Vista SP1 using Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 on common business file tasks We tested a total of four client-server OS platform combinations to give buyers a sense of the differences in response time they would experience when performing the same file operations on each.
Responsiveness of Windows Vista, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP on common home tasks We measured the responsiveness of three operating systems—Windows Vista, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP—when performing a set of common home tasks after rebooting, returning from standby, and in ongoing operation. We tested five systems: Dell XPS 600 (desktop), Dell XPS M170 (notebook), HP a1320y (desktop), HP d4100e (desktop), and Toshiba Tecra M4 (tablet).
Responsiveness of Windows Vista, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP on common office tasks We measured the responsiveness of three operating systems—Windows Vista, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP—when performing a set of common office tasks after rebooting, returning from standby, and in ongoing operation. We tested five systems: Dell XPS 600 (desktop), Dell XPS M170 (notebook), HP a1320y (desktop), HP d4100e (desktop), and Toshiba Tecra M4 (tablet).
Go to more software reports>
Options for reducing manageability costs Enterprises seeking to reduce manageability costs are considering multiple computing models available today. This Intel®-commissioned white paper examines two current models that can help achieve this goal: (1) Intel® vPro™ processor technology and Intel® Centrino™ Pro processor technology clients and (2) server-based computing.
Manageability cost calculator Enterprises seeking to reduce manageability costs are considering multiple computing models available today. This Intel®-commissioned Excel calculator lets you compare costs associated with two current models: (1) Intel® vPro™ processor technology and Intel® Centrino™ Pro processor technology clients and (2) server-based computing.
Options for reducing intrusion security risks Enterprises seeking to reduce security costs are considering multiple computing models available today. This Intel®-commissioned white paper examines two current models that can help achieve this goal: (1) Intel® vPro™ processor technology and Intel® Centrino™ Pro processor technology clients and (2) server-based computing.
Productivity cost calculator This calculator estimates the increase in cost of lost productivity for users of server-based computing with thin clients compared to well-managed rich clients. We include estimates for an example enterprise plus a set of estimates that you can modify to get a rough idea of costs for your enterprise.
Thin clients: Exploring rollout costs While thin clients can appear to be far less expensive to deploy than rich clients, many costs of adopting thin clients are not initially visible. In this white paper, we examine the many types of changes and costs organizations should consider when contemplating deploying thin clients.
Thin client conversion cost calculator This Microsoft Excel spreadsheet calculator identifies and quantifies the costs of a thin client rollout in which the thin clients are replacing existing PCs. It includes six cost categories: application servers, network infrastructure, planning, application migration, training, and software licensing.
Rich clients with thin client security: A hybrid approach In this white paper, we examine how to deliver some of the data security characteristics traditionally associated with thin clients on rich clients. We concentrate on data security, the prevention of theft of data from computers.
Go to more thin client reports>
Windows Server 2008 SPECjbb2005 performance and power consumption on Dell, HP, and IBM blade servers We tested three dual-socket blade servers: Dell PowerEdge M600, HP BladeSystem c-Class, and IBM BladeCenter H Type 8852.
Intel Modular Server performance on simultaneous email, Web server, Java, and database workloads We measured the system performance of the Intel Modular Server built on Intel Multi-Flex Technology to compare the performance of each Server Compute Module in two states: with that one Server Compute Module running alone and with all Server Compute Modules running simultaneously.
We evaluated the performance, power consumption, and out-of-box setup experience of three dual-socket blade servers: Dell PowerEdge M600 Blade System, HP BladeSystem c-Class, and IBM BladeCenter H Type 8852.
Out-of-box comparison between Dell, HP, and IBM blade servers We compared the out-of-box setup experience of three dual-socket blade servers: Dell PowerEdge M600 Blade System, HP BladeSystem c-Class, and IBM BladeCenter H Type 8852.
SPECjbb2005 performance and power consumption on Dell, HP, and IBM blade servers We measured the SPECjbb2005 performance and performance per watt of three dual-socket blade servers: Dell PowerEdge M600 Blade System, HP BladeSystem c-Class, and IBM BladeCenter H Type 8852.
Out-of-box comparison between Dell and HP blade servers We compared a Dell PowerEdge 1955 Blade System with an HP BladeSystem c-Class. Due to differences in packaging and design, there was a considerable difference in setup times for the two systems.
SPECjbb2005 performance and power consumption on Dell and HP blade servers We tested two dual-processor blade servers: Dell PowerEdge 1955 Blade System and HP BladeSystem c-Class.
Go to more server reports>
Enterprises seeking to reduce manageability costs are considering multiple computing models currently available. In this Intel-commissioned study, we examined six models that can help achieve this goal:
We pay particular attention to deployment, power, lost productivity, and manageability. We also look at indirect costs such as user experience, security, future proofing/rich application support, desk-side environmental issues, compliance, performance, and mobility.
As part of this study, we created a white paper, a calculator (Excel format), and a presentation (PowerPoint format). An additional document provides supporting data for performance and sizing data.
Total cost of ownership analysis for various computing models (white paper) We summarize our analysis of the six computing models, drawing on our hands-on testing, our TCO calculator, and our research
Total cost of ownership analysis for various computing models – Supporting data for performance and sizing calculations We discuss the methodologies and results of the performance and sizing tests we ran on the various platforms. We used this data as input for the calculator and the other documents.
Various computing models: Total cost of ownership analysis (PowerPoint presentation) We analyze the direct and indirect costs for all six platforms. In addition, we consider the impact of these platforms on the cost of a Microsoft Vista migration as well as the consequences of working across slow local network links and wide-area networks.
TCO calculator (Excel) We used this calculator to examine the costs of the various platforms in our sample enterprise. You can estimate the costs of these platforms in your enterprise by entering specific parameters that reflect your infrastructure.
Go to more thin client reports>
We compared the performance, power consumption, and out-of-box experience of the Dell PowerEdge 2970 and PowerEdge 2970 Energy Smart servers with the HP ProLiant DL380 G5 and the IBM System x3650.
SPECfp_rate performance on Dell, HP, and IBM servers We tested three servers: Dell PowerEdge 2970 with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2222 SE processors, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors, and IBM System x3650 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors.
SPEC CPU2006 SPECfp_rate power consumption on Dell, HP, and IBM servers We tested four systems: Dell PowerEdge 2970 with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2222 SE processors, Dell PowerEdge 2970 Energy Smart with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2212 HE processors, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors, and IBM System x3650 with two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5160 processors.
Out-of-box comparison between Dell, HP, and IBM servers We compared the out-of-box experience of three servers: Dell PowerEdge 2970 Server, HP ProLiant DL380 G5 Storage Server, and IBM System x3650. Due to differences in packaging and design, the times for each step of the setup process for the three systems varied considerably.
Go to more server reports>
Responsiveness of Windows Vista and Windows Vista SP1 using Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 on common business file tasks We tested four client-server OS platform combinations to give buyers a sense of the differences in response time they would experience when performing the same file operations on each.
Responsiveness of Windows Vista, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP on common home tasks We measured the responsiveness of three operating systems—Windows Vista, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP—when performing a set of common home tasks after rebooting, returning from standby, and in ongoing operation. We tested five systems: Dell XPS 600 (desktop), Dell XPS M170 (notebook), HP a1320y (desktop), HP d4100e (desktop), and Toshiba Tecra M4 (tablet).
Responsiveness of Windows Vista, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP on common office tasks We measured the responsiveness of three operating systems—Windows Vista, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP—when performing a set of common office tasks after rebooting, returning from standby, and in ongoing operation. We tested five systems: Dell XPS 600 (desktop), Dell XPS M170 (notebook), HP a1320y (desktop), HP d4100e (desktop), and Toshiba Tecra M4 (tablet).
Go to more desktop reports>
z
