Sun looses 'world's fastest chip' -- the 1.4GHz Niagara 2

In a bold and presumably calculated statement, Sun Microsystems has proclaimed that its newfangled Niagara 2 is "the world's fastest multi-core commodity chip." Clocking in at 1.4GHz, this eight-core chip also boasts 64 threads, eight lanes of PCI Express I/O, and four memory controllers, all of which will supposedly boost server performance beyond anything we're currently seeing. Reportedly, the aforementioned claim was based on a "pair of record-setting SPEC benchmark results," but we still think that's a bit dodgy to base such a remark on. Nevertheless, Sun is suggesting that this CPU will "consume less power and do more work per clock tick than its rivals," and isn't shying away from taking on the likes of Intel, IBM, and AMD. Eh, we'll stick with our 8.18GHz Pentium 4.

[Via The Register]

[Adam @ Aug 7th 2007 6:35AM]

At first I thought the story was saying Sun lost the world's fastest chip...then I realized you meant "unleashes"!

[Aaron @ Aug 7th 2007 6:57PM]

It really is too bad that so many people somehow didn't learn the difference between lose and loose.

Probably the most painful mistake to read online. Thank you Engadget for using it correctly.

[Mad @ Aug 7th 2007 6:37AM]

They must really need it to run "Hello World" in Java.

(Java FTL)

[Andir3.0 @ Aug 7th 2007 6:58AM]

Java isn't bad, it just had a rough start.

[Jeebus @ Aug 7th 2007 12:17PM]

Tell that to NASDAQ, eBay, Charles Schwab, and thousands of other companies running their mission critical software on Java.

[ScotTech @ Aug 7th 2007 6:47AM]

Nice to see Sun making a resurgence.

Will be more excited when Sun details some distribution contracts and has some manufacturers actually USING the world's fastest multi-core commodity chip.

[Jaxster @ Aug 7th 2007 7:29AM]

I seem to remember apple getting in trouble over using the phrase "worlds fastest" and not being able to back it up with any cold hard facts.

[Chuckles McGee @ Aug 7th 2007 8:59AM]

Benchmarks would be a good thing.

[johnzilla @ Aug 7th 2007 8:32AM]

My guess is this is just one of the by-products of Sun's relationship with Google. More work per clock tick with less power is a boon to companies like Google with thousands and thousands of servers. Anything to cut down on the electric and air-conditioning bills in their datacenters is worth a deeper look.

[wizzle @ Aug 7th 2007 1:33PM]

Google doesn't actually use formal servers. The have data warehouses full of typical, cheap desktop boxes that are clustered using Google's proprietary software. It's fault tolerant, such that when a machine fails they just leave it there because it's cheaper than actually servicing it.

[johnzilla @ Aug 7th 2007 1:44PM]

You missed my point. Whatever they use, it uses electricity, generates heat, and takes up space. In addition, their datacenter utility costs are rising (Google "google datacenter costs" to see what I mean).

It isn't about servicing the machine if it fails, it is about maintaining the environment in which the machine sits.

In short, chips that can do more on less electricity and generate less heat doing it can save companies with huge datacenter footprints lots of money.

[wizzle @ Aug 7th 2007 1:56PM]

@johnzilla

No, you missed my point. Google does not, nor will they use Sun servers. Therefore this chip will actually have zero impact on Google. Other large companies that DO use traditional servers may be impacted, just not Google.

[johnzilla @ Aug 7th 2007 2:10PM]

@wizzle

*sigh* No, I got your point, and discarded it. Your point is that Google does not use Sun chips now, therefore they never will, therefore I am wrong.

My point: Google and Sun have been working together on various technologies (Google for the press releases). Sun has specifically been working on improved datacenter technologies targeting lower utility costs (more utility computing such as its "datacenter in a box" announcement last). If Sun is targeting datacenters, there's no better partner to have than Google. Further, Linux, which Google uses, can run on Sun chips. Imagine, then, Google figuring out that they could save 10%, or 20%, or whatever on their power costs by using new lower power chips.

You're saying Google doesn't use Sun chips now and therefore would not be interested in Sun chips later, and that Google would not be interested in a chip that could save them money on fixed infrastructure costs.

I'm saying that Sun and Google agreed to work with each other (previously announced), Sun is targeting the datacenter market and always has, and that Google would jump at the chance to use a more frugal chip if it meant they could save a few tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure costs every year. At the very least, using less energy fits their general "green-ness" as a company as well as their fiduciary duty to stockholders.

[wizzle @ Aug 7th 2007 2:32PM]

@johnzilla

While the sarcasm is much appreciated, I was not saying that large datacenters wouldn't be interested in this chip - just that Google is a bad example because it would be non-trivial for them to migrate their skunkworks server clusters to a traditional architecture, especially considering they are already leveraging their current system for its much lower infrastructure costs. So the presumed 10, 20, or whatever % you speculate for cost savings would be much more appropriately attributed to a company like MS, Yahoo, NYSE, etc. that DOES use traditional architecture.

Also, Google and Sun's partnership doesn't extend to hardware, especially Project Blackbox, which is a Sun-only project. The purpose of the Sun-Google handshake was so they can pimp eachothers' Java and Google Toolbar. http://www.sun.com/2005-1004/feature/

[Spiff @ Aug 7th 2007 8:42AM]

filed under: desktops.

yeah.

Take that 8.18GHz pentium and stick it in a supercomputer.

[eberan @ Aug 7th 2007 9:10AM]

Yes but can it run Doom?

Oh, and stop using 'looses' as a synonym to releases or lets loose.

[chyort @ Aug 7th 2007 8:29AM]

Main Entry: loose
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): loosed; loos·ing
transitive verb
1 a : to let loose : RELEASE b : to free from restraint
2 : to make loose : UNTIE

Loose is fine. Dictionaries can be fun.

[Joey Geraci @ Aug 7th 2007 8:32AM]

Dictionaries are crap. Who is an expert to tell me what a word means? A communist, that's who. I guess you are in support of communism, then. Figures.

[bscout @ Aug 7th 2007 10:48AM]

Yes, you looked up the definition, but you don't seem to understand what the definition is saying. You have to use it in a transitive form.

As written, it is incorrect -- what should be written is "lets loose." You can't take out "lets" and expect it to mean the same thing. As written, it does mean "loss" is occurring.

It's annoying that there isn't someone on engadget's editorial staff who understands verb conjugation as this is one of many headlines that uses "loose" incorrectly.

[Jason Petersen @ Aug 9th 2007 2:48AM]

Do you actually think you're correct? Because you're not. It says the verb "loose" is transitive, nothing else. "He loosed the hounds" is a perfectly correct sentence.

OED FTW.

[wizzle @ Aug 7th 2007 3:50PM]

Dictionary.com lists "looses." See fo yoself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=looses

[eberan @ Aug 7th 2007 9:12AM]

While it may be in a dictionary (note, 'a' dictionary, not all dictionaries), I find very few examples of its use. Not to mention the definition you posted doesn't contain "looses"

google search returned: "Did you mean: loses"

dictionary.com has no examples
thefreedictionary.com has no examples
Cambridge Dictionary of American English has no references

I think my main problem with using it in a headline, is the fact that lots of people misspell loses as looses. My brain tries to correct for that by automatically telling me 'loses'. It's the second post on engadget where I thought someone lost something!

Headlines should be aesthetically pleasing/easy to read and to the point. I can't be the only one with a problem with this. Maybe it's cause I speak real English and not British English ;] (joking joking, don't get your knickers in a twist)

[strider_mt2k @ Aug 7th 2007 9:22AM]

If you're wondering how Engadget writes and spells, and other grammar facts

Just repeat to yourself,
"It's just a show, I should really just relax"

-for Mystery Science Theater Three Thousaaaand!
(jaaaaanggg!)

[wizzle @ Aug 7th 2007 4:02PM]

See above link

...from Dictionary.com:

v. loosed, loos·ing, loos·es

v. tr.

1. To let loose; release: loosed the dogs.
2. To make loose; undo: loosed his belt.
3. To cast loose; detach: hikers loosing their packs at camp.
4. To let fly; discharge: loosed an arrow.
5. To release pressure or obligation from; absolve: loosed her from the responsibility.
6. To make less strict; relax: a leader's strong authority that was loosed by easy times.


v. intr.

1. To become loose.
2. To discharge a missile; fire.

[Constable Odo @ Aug 7th 2007 10:04AM]

For how much? A couple of thousand dollars a chip?

[Andir3.0 @ Aug 7th 2007 10:36AM]

Still, I have to agree. It would have been much clearer in meaning if the title was (Sun releases "world's fastest chip"). Instead the author has to try to prove some linguistic superiority complex by using "looses".

[omnicloud @ Aug 7th 2007 12:38PM]

Doesn't Intel have that 80-core teraflop chip sitting around in their labs somewhere?

[wizzle @ Aug 7th 2007 4:06PM]

@eberan

i beg to differ, friend. there are many examples of "loosed" there used as a transitive verb. so "loosed" in those examples could be exchanged for "loosing" or "looses."

[eberan @ Aug 7th 2007 3:57PM]

@wizzle

I never said it wasn't listed. I just said there were no examples of its use.
See fo yoself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=looses

[dave @ Aug 7th 2007 8:40PM]

Posted under desktops??!?!?! Probably should live under the servers tag.

[GerryofNorVA @ Aug 7th 2007 9:02PM]

Sorry, this is 2007 and you're not impressing me with anything at 1.4Ghz regardless of core count. And to tout it as "world's fastest [multicore, commodity] chip", eh. Intel/AMD will trump this "tomorrow" if Sun's claim is even true to begin with. Just smacks of "don't forget about me!" Poor, Sun.