Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache

Michael Vince mv at thebeastie.org
Wed Apr 26 01:56:52 UTC 2006

Yes I was going to point out a article from Anandtech as well.

Its an older one but someone on Anandtech is a SQL performance article 
benchmarking different server CPUs on Database performance.
It concluded that large CPU cache is very important for Databases.
Basically said having a large CPU cache it helped performance more for 
databases then most things they ever benchmark such as benchmark 
differences shown in Office apps and multimedia tests.

The AMD Opterons are real performance leaders ATM right now no doubt.
I also understand why you must get Dell, some of the other hardware 
suppliers are just to hard to deal with, I tried to get a Opteron server 
out of HP and after about 1 month of getting excuses about CPU shortages 
etc I went back to Dell.
Off topic here is a kind of cool article I think a lot of people can 
identify with, http://joyeur.com/2006/03/20/the-sun-doesnt-shine-on-me


Steven Hartland wrote:

> Forget Intel and go for AMD who beat them hands down for DB work:
> http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Moran" 
> <wmoran at collaborativefusion.com>
>> Our current Dells have 2M cache, and I'm trying to determine whether
>> the 8M cache will make a significant difference or not.  Can someone
>> recommend a testing procedure for determining whether adding cache is
>> worthwhile or not?  I can simulate a test load at any time, but I
>> don't know how to tell whether the cache is the bottleneck of the
>> CPU or not.

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list