Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:35:06 -0400 From: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>, Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Subject: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache Message-ID: <17487.34074.833134.823847@canoe.dclg.ca> In-Reply-To: <444E8F8A.9030409@rogers.com> References: <20060425090739.8470143f.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <005301c668ab$39c4c150$8b00a8c0@multiplay.co.uk> <444E8F8A.9030409@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Jakubik <mikej@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. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can be | |Mail: dave@daveg.ca | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17487.34074.833134.823847>