Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
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.
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
More information about the freebsd-performance