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

Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"

From: "Guido Neitzer" <guido(dot)neitzer(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
Cc: "Arjen van der Meijden" <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>, "Vivek Khera" <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, "Pgsql-Performance ((((E-mail))))" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
Date: 2006-09-23 13:00:31
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-performance
I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other "benchmarks"
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ... it just doesn't scale well.


On 9/23/06, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> wrote:
> Yep. From what I understand, Intel is 8 to 10 times the size of AMD.
> It's somewhat amazing that AMD even competes, and excellent for us, the
> consumer, that they compete well, ensuring that we get very fast
> computers, for amazingly low prices.
> But Intel isn't crashing down any time soon. Perhaps they became a little
> lazy, and made a few mistakes. AMD is forcing them to clean up.
> May the competition continue... :-)
> Cheers,
> mark

PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2006-09-23 13:16:50
Subject: Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"
Previous:From: Markus SchaberDate: 2006-09-23 12:19:42
Subject: Re: Confusion and Questions about blocks read

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group