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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

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