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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

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