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

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

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: david_list(at)boreham(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Date: 2006-04-25 21:00:08
Message-ID: 444E8DD8.3040504@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
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!

> 
> 


-- 

            === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
      Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
      Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
                     http://www.commandprompt.com/



In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-04-25 21:03:49
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Previous:From: David BorehamDate: 2006-04-25 19:57:59
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs

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