Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:57:31 +0200 From: "Claus Guttesen" <kometen@gmail.com> To: Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD or Intel? Message-ID: <b41c75520709202257y14c82040s163404df644763b5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <57EF86A6-6062-4F1A-959E-41ABABD3F0CF@decibel.org> References: <E6C9DBADAE3839B380B736D7@rambutan.pingpong.net> <cone.1189710437.247473.77599.5001@35st.simplicato.com> <1F219879A7E5C565C96109FF@c-2f56e155.1521-1-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se> <57EF86A6-6062-4F1A-959E-41ABABD3F0CF@decibel.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I think this is not current information; the new woodcrest > > architecture performs mucg better, although this is deduced from > > this thread's discussion... > > Except this thread has largely glossed over the importance of memory > bandwidth, which is exactly the reason why Opterons have been beating > Xeons for several years. Last I'd heard, things were fairly close > between the two, but that would matter on how many cores and physical > CPUs you have. > > It would be good if someone could do a database benchmark for some of > the larger parts. Like this one??? http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6 Related links has been mentioned before. Opterons does perform well, especially compared to the first and second generation xeon's. But when woodcrest and clowertown were introduced opteron was more or less left behind. Maby AMD's new barcelona will change the picture. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b41c75520709202257y14c82040s163404df644763b5>