Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: david_list(at)boreham(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Date: 2006-04-25 21:03:49
Message-ID: 200604252103.k3PL3nM03949@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> David Boreham wrote:
> > 
> >> Actually, that was from an article from this last month that compared
> >> the dual core intel to the amd.  for every dollar spent on the intel,
> >> you got about half the performance of the amd.  Not bigotry.  fact.
> >>
> >> But don't believe me or the other people who've seen the difference.  Go
> >> buy the Intel box.  No skin off my back.
> >>   
> > I've been doing plenty of performance evaluation on a parallel application
> > we're developing here : on Dual Core Opterons, P4, P4D. I can say that
> > the Opterons open up a can of wupass on the Intel processors. Almost 2x
> > the performance on our application vs. what the SpecCPU numbers would
> > suggest.
> 
> Because Stone Cold Said So!

I'll believe someone who uses 'wupass' in a sentence any day!

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ron PeacetreeDate: 2006-04-25 21:09:53
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-04-25 21:00:08
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group