eblu

02-08-2005, 01:06 PM

a coworker did a cost per megahertz ratio on the xserve and the mini. I was suprised by the results.

mini:

1.25 ghz (1250 mhz) / 499=

2.50 dollars per megahertz

xserve (using the lowest dual config)

2x2.0 Ghz (2000 mhz) / 3999 =

1.00 dollars per megahertz.

while its true that you could afford : an effective 10 Ghz in (G4) Minis at the price of one Xserve at 4 GHZ (2 x 2.0 G5s), it appears that the more expensive option (xserve) is the most cost effective on a megahertz to megahertz basis.

but... based on the blanos scores of the raytracing scene in Lightwave (subjective at best... I know)

the G4 (tower Not Mini, but its a good place to start right?) got 167 seconds

the G5 (2x2Ghz Tower, again not what were talking about but reasonably acceptable)

recieved a 58.

check my math but that gives us a 2.87 ratio. ie: it takes 3 low end minis to out perform a 2 processor 2 gigahertz Xserve. the cost ratio there is: 1500 vs 4000; or: 2.6 (as in the xserve costs 2.6 times more money than a similar amount of iron in Minis) its obvious that the megahertz per dollar ratio is influencing the outcome of the cost ratio, but Not enough to really hurt the cost effectiveness of the min vs the xserve.

quick note: all of this is speculation and ignores things like Ram, disk speed, and the like. I imagine in the real world, Minis will be hampered by their ram limit, but the disk speed issue will in all likelihood not be a large factor. even if they are affected, the amount of impact would have to be almost squared before the xserve becomes more cost effective. This is due to the fact that you can buy 8 minis for the price of the dual 2 gig xserve, and it only takes 3 minis to "roughly equal" the rendering power of the Xserve. If the minis were hobbled so bad that it took 9 of them (3 x 3 = 9) to equal the power of an xserve, then the xserve would be a better choice. but if that were to happen then the effective Megahertz of the Minis would be something like... 400 mhz... heh funny. thats about the spot where Cubes were.

mini:

1.25 ghz (1250 mhz) / 499=

2.50 dollars per megahertz

xserve (using the lowest dual config)

2x2.0 Ghz (2000 mhz) / 3999 =

1.00 dollars per megahertz.

while its true that you could afford : an effective 10 Ghz in (G4) Minis at the price of one Xserve at 4 GHZ (2 x 2.0 G5s), it appears that the more expensive option (xserve) is the most cost effective on a megahertz to megahertz basis.

but... based on the blanos scores of the raytracing scene in Lightwave (subjective at best... I know)

the G4 (tower Not Mini, but its a good place to start right?) got 167 seconds

the G5 (2x2Ghz Tower, again not what were talking about but reasonably acceptable)

recieved a 58.

check my math but that gives us a 2.87 ratio. ie: it takes 3 low end minis to out perform a 2 processor 2 gigahertz Xserve. the cost ratio there is: 1500 vs 4000; or: 2.6 (as in the xserve costs 2.6 times more money than a similar amount of iron in Minis) its obvious that the megahertz per dollar ratio is influencing the outcome of the cost ratio, but Not enough to really hurt the cost effectiveness of the min vs the xserve.

quick note: all of this is speculation and ignores things like Ram, disk speed, and the like. I imagine in the real world, Minis will be hampered by their ram limit, but the disk speed issue will in all likelihood not be a large factor. even if they are affected, the amount of impact would have to be almost squared before the xserve becomes more cost effective. This is due to the fact that you can buy 8 minis for the price of the dual 2 gig xserve, and it only takes 3 minis to "roughly equal" the rendering power of the Xserve. If the minis were hobbled so bad that it took 9 of them (3 x 3 = 9) to equal the power of an xserve, then the xserve would be a better choice. but if that were to happen then the effective Megahertz of the Minis would be something like... 400 mhz... heh funny. thats about the spot where Cubes were.