From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 26 14:42:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8165816A405 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:42:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C93043D70 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:42:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from vanquish.pgh.priv.collaborativefusion.com (vanquish.pgh.priv.collaborativefusion.com [192.168.2.61]) by wingspan with esmtp; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:42:42 -0400 id 0005641D.444F86E2.0000996B Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:42:42 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: David Gilbert Message-Id: <20060426104242.1209c152.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <17487.34074.833134.823847@canoe.dclg.ca> References: <20060425090739.8470143f.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <005301c668ab$39c4c150$8b00a8c0@multiplay.co.uk> <444E8F8A.9030409@rogers.com> <17487.34074.833134.823847@canoe.dclg.ca> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.0 (GTK+ 2.8.12; i386-portbld-freebsd6.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:42:46 -0000 On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:35:06 -0400 David Gilbert wrote: > >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Jakubik 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 "Sun"? 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.