AIX Koolaid or TopShelf Liquor!
Hey anonymous coward, if you only talked about how great your "Intel kit" was then you couldn't be blamed for simply liking what you like. But then you go and start spewing FUD and lies about IBM Power like you are an authority.
If Intel is so "open", why did Google and 27+ other major companies join IBM in the OpenPower Foundation? That is where innovation is taking place and why? Why, because Intel is actually shutting out partners and stifling innovation as they try to expand and own it all - kind of like Oracle is doing by buying hardware, storage, applications, middleware, OS, support, backup, etc. Unlike Oracle which is in the enterprise, Intel extends from the consumer to commercial.
OpenPower with Google, Tyan, Mellanox, Nvidia, Samsung, Xilinx, Micron, Hitachi, Ubuntu and more are working on some crazy products that will deliver features and capabilities that stagnant x86 won't know what hit them. If you want to see some innovation go read up on them.
Do you even know how much a Power server cost? You write like you are just "put off" that there could be an option to your much beloved x86 platform, let alone it be competitive. Your first mistake is pricing a core for core Power server to a x86 server. I don't need a 2 socket 16 core Power8 server to do the same work as a 2 socket 16 core Intel server. But, you (x86 fanboi's) will try to make that comparison all day. Let me point you to the SAP S&D 2 tier benchmark comparing the 2 socket 24 core Power8 S824 server to the 4 socket 60 core NEC server that were both posted at the end of April. The 4 socket IB E7 v2 which you say the "latest Intel kit far exceeds anything that IBM is offering" generated 114,700 SAPS with 20,800 Users vs the 2 socket 24 core Power8 S824 with 115,870 SAPS and 21,212 Users. There are a couple of 4 socket E7 v2 that go up to 135K but you can't dismiss the incredible performance of the "latest IBM kit (actually) far exceeds anything that Intel is offering". The P8 has 4828 SAPS per core compared to just 1912 SAPS for the E7 v2 or should I call it the "latest Intel kit"? If that doesn't work for you how about the SPECint for the 24 core Power8 at 1750 vs 1020 for a 24 core E5 v2 - yes, now I am comparing 2 socket to 2 socket and core for core. SPECfp is 1370 for P8 and 734 for E5 v2 as well. Would you like to hear the SPECEnterprise2010 result? How about that it is 939 EjOPS per P8 core compared to 469 for the E5 v2 core. I could go on and dive deeper into how PowerVM delivers QoS for it's VM's, allows for dynamic changes of cpu, memory and I/O, concurrent updates to firmware and other maintenance, etc, etc. Besides just performance there are the benefits of the integrated stack. Power still uses partners to deliver products like memory, adapters and disk drives - they just ensure they do so at tight tolerances and specification. Further, they test them to work with the hypervisor, OS(es), HA products, filesystems, storage, etc so the user experience is positive and the results are exceptional - doesn't mean they are perfect but anybody who argues a Power server is not reliable has NO experience working with one - I don't know you but can say that without hesitation. You can hate the platform, dislike IBM and love your ugly baby but you don't get to make up the facts.
Your utilization claims are suspect for sure - some shops over 80%....hmmm, I call BS. If they are x86 I doubt they are virtualized. I think you are trying to be provocative again. I'll do some research for recent studies by all vendors to see what they say is becoming the norm - I hardly believe 80% is. When you respond with more FUD, please provide some links to a vendor or even well known industry bloggers who have discussed this.
I already refuted your performance claims above showing you just make stuff up to suit your argument. IBM has Power8 servers with price parity to x86 servers - not all of them but definitely in the entry space. When sized for the workload, including the virtualization, OS and 3 years of support they are virtually equal. Just like x86 vendors and the unaware want to do by comparing a 16 core Power to a 16 core x86 server, you also look at the TCA or acquisition price as if that is the relevant factor. It is 1 of about 20 components that make up the solution cost. There is the data center power, rack & cooling costs. LAN & SAN cabling & port costs, OS & virtualization license & support costs, security products like anti-virus, HA or other clustering products like Oracle RAC at $23,000 per core + 22% maintenance per year. Application and middleware costs. You don't want to hear this and won't believe it as you probably do not think the rich pay enough taxes, that America is the cause of the world's problems or that x86 is just as reliable or secure as any RISC/Unix or mainframe platform. But, a properly sized Power solution running Oracle for example against an appropriately sized Intel solution (pick your vendor) with Linux will cost 4X of the Power solution. The server cost is a nit as the largest portion of the TCO is software and we haven't even brought up the increased number of FTE's required to support the proliferation of heat producing toasters in the data center that require non-stop attention to replace disk drives, memory, power supplies - having VM's all over the place as they vMotion themselves as soon as the server see's a increase in utilization - oh, that's right - not your servers because they run up to 80%. Well, every other shop but yours scooter.