One of the claims made by IBM and System i users is that it is more is energy efficient per workload than the equivalent computing power of scaled-out x86 boxes. Writing in the context of mainframes, immediate past president of the IBM user group Share, Robert Rosen, says that scale-out is horrible for energy efficiency because utilization is so low. Of course, the System i isn’t a mainframe, but does the utilization logic apply? Is looking at scaled-out clusters and the System i (or mainframe for that matter) in terms of energy efficiency an apples-to-apples comparison?

The issue of power efficiency and the System i was taken up recently by Chris Maxcer in the System i Network. He wonders how concerned a System i shop needs to be about their environmental contributions, because energy-saving strategies such as virtualization via LPAR allocation or proprietary software, is such a prominent part of the System i architecture.

Furthermore, if the System i is so efficient (and if you have the data that says it is, we’d love to see it), does it matter that IBM is investing in efforts like Project Green or The Green Grid? Sure, IBM has their x-series, blades and other products that could use some greening up in terms of energy efficiency, but what does it mean for System i users?

Speaking of those initiatives, does anyone really believe that IBM’s endeavors are environmentally altruistic? Or do most people recognize that it’s about the economics of power and the electricity bill that pops up on the CIO’s or CFO’s desk every month? One way to assess the integrity of these initiatives is to look at Gartner’s recent analysis of The Green Grid’s work. The consortium’s membership is heavy on vendors and light on end-user representation, meaning that the motives could point to self-interest. In other words, under the rubric of environmentally responsible green computing, who’s to say that a group of manufacturers, including System i creators IBM, aren’t just offering products that they deem energy efficient without the accountability of user feedback?

In all fairness, IBM did recently offer the new Power6 processor, which comes a premium price. The chip is twice as fast as the previous generation using almost no more energy. That is putting your R&D where your mouth is, isn’t it? The corporate skeptic in me, though, looks at the price and questions whether IBM isn’t just profiteering from the green computing craze. It’s hard to blame them, though. They are a business after all. Who says being green isn’t profitable?

In this detailed article, Timothy Prickett Morgan from IT Jungle compares System i price and performance to Unix boxes from IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Sun Microsystems.

I suggest reading the story if you want all the dirty details, including tables with all the specs. But the bottom line conclusions by Morgan are these:

• System i entry boxes should have the Power6 chip sooner rather than later.
• i5/OS is too expensive.
• DB2 on the System i is too expensive.

Morgan said System i lags on price-performance more because of the software than the hardware.

Maybe IBM announced Power6-based servers on System p before System i because System i doesn’t need Power6 as badly. It all comes down to System p customers hungering for more and more processing power. Meanwhile, System i folks can take advantage of features like capacity on demand and get by until the Power6-based i machines hit the market.

That’s just another reason to focus the POWER6 on the Unix world. If Unix is constantly hungry for more power . . . but the System i world is relatively not as hungry . . . no wonder IBM has had a tough time making quarterly financial reports that show positive revenue growth for the System i group.

Sure, every hardware manufacturer has this same problem, but I can’t help but believe it hits the System i harder than others.

The IBM Power6 processor news hit this week, and in case you hadn’t seen it, it’s all about the System p. Sure, System i got a quick mention in some stories because its Power6-based systems will be here late this year or early next. But System p is a strong growth platform for IBM, especially recently, while System i simply is not.

Here’s a hint at another reason: System i is a banana, while other midrange platforms from Sun, HP and IBM itself are oranges. Check out Chris Maxcer’s blog about the Power6 release to read up on this fruit analogy.