From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jeff Frost" <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Status of Opteron vs Xeon |
Date: | 2005-10-07 12:27:05 |
Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD53E@Herge.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> What's the current status of how much faster the Opteron is compared
to
> the
> Xeons? I know the Opterons used to be close to 2x faster, but is that
> still
> the case? I understand much work has been done to reduce the contect
> switching storms on the Xeon architecture, is this correct?
Up until two days ago (Oct 5) Intel has had no answer for AMD's dual
core offerings...unfortunately this has allowed AMD to charge top dollar
for dual core Opterons. The Intel dual core solution on the P4 side
hasn't been very impressive particularly with regard to thermals.
My 90nm athlon 3000 at home runs very cool...if I underclock it a bit I
can actually turn off the cooling fan :).
IMO, right now it's AMD all the way, but if you are planning a big
purchase, it might be smart to wait a couple of months for the big price
realignment as Intel's dual xeons hit the retail channel.
Merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-10-07 13:07:15 | Re: count(*) using index scan in "query often, update rarely" environment |
Previous Message | Cestmir Hybl | 2005-10-07 11:14:20 | Re: count(*) using index scan in "query often, update rarely" environment |