From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | david_list(at)boreham(dot)org |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs |
Date: | 2006-04-25 21:00:08 |
Message-ID: | 444E8DD8.3040504@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
David Boreham wrote:
>
>> Actually, that was from an article from this last month that compared
>> the dual core intel to the amd. for every dollar spent on the intel,
>> you got about half the performance of the amd. Not bigotry. fact.
>>
>> But don't believe me or the other people who've seen the difference. Go
>> buy the Intel box. No skin off my back.
>>
> I've been doing plenty of performance evaluation on a parallel application
> we're developing here : on Dual Core Opterons, P4, P4D. I can say that
> the Opterons open up a can of wupass on the Intel processors. Almost 2x
> the performance on our application vs. what the SpecCPU numbers would
> suggest.
Because Stone Cold Said So!
>
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-25 21:03:49 | Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs |
Previous Message | David Boreham | 2006-04-25 19:57:59 | Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs |