Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache

Bill Moran wmoran at collaborativefusion.com
Wed Apr 26 14:42:46 UTC 2006

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:35:06 -0400
David Gilbert <dgilbert at dclg.ca> wrote:

> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Jakubik <mikej at rogers.com> writes:
> Mike> 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
> Mike> It will be interesting to see how Intels new CPUs (Conroe,
> Mike> Woodcrest, etc) will perform. From initial gaming benchmarks,
> Mike> they seems to outperform the current AMD offerings. But for
> Mike> current technology i agree, go for an Opteron system.
> This isn't random.  As I understand the issue, the Opteron HT bus
> handles synchronization much faster.  So for a game --- this doesn't
> matter ... games don't (usually) need sync.  Databases, however, live
> on synchonizaton.  If you're a Dell man (and already paying the Dell
> tax), consider the Sun 1U's.  They offer up to 4 cores in a 1U.

Lost me here.

Are you saying 1U units from Sun?  Or does Dell have a 1U called a

I am pretty-much locked into Dell - decision made by others.  Actually,
I've been pretty happy with the Dell HW, but it's a shame they don't
offer AMD servers.

Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list