Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:28:00 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> Subject: Re: AMD or Intel? Message-ID: <20070913032800.GO79417@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <46E5D402.8060305@FreeBSD.org> References: <E6C9DBADAE3839B380B736D7@rambutan.pingpong.net> <20070910224503.GO79417@elvis.mu.org> <46E5D402.8060305@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> [070910 16:32] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >Palle, > > > >I really haven't kept pace with Intel versus AMD in a while, my > >understanding is that AMD is still the only 64bit game in town. > > > >For a database, the more memory you can get, the better. > > > >I've found many machines with 4 gigs of ram to not be enough to > >get decent performance from a database these days. > > > >I would suggest going with AMD and getting a board that can > >do at least 8GB if not 16 or even 32GB of ram. > > > >Even with what I've been hearing in this thread about a 20% speed > >difference with Intel parts, you will totally be ruined once you > >hit the 4GB barrier on your Intel hardware. > > That's actually not true, intel came out with their first amd64 clone > (which they call "EM64T") something like 3 or 4 years ago. I cannot say > from first hand experience but I have heard that their current > generation is solidly outperforming amd64. Actually, what I said was true, it was my understanding that was wrong. :) I guess the answer I was trying to say was, go for whatever gives you room for a lot of RAM. -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070913032800.GO79417>