On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Boreham <david_l...@boreham.org> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> We went from Dunnington to Nehalem, and it was stunning how much better >>>> the X5675 was compared to the E7450. Sandy Bridge isn't quite that much of >>>> a >>>> jump though, so if you don't need that kind of bleeding-edge, you might be >>>> able to save some cash. This is especially true since the E5-2600 series >>>> has >>>> the same TDP profile and both use 32nm lithography. >>> >>> We use Opteron on a price/performance basis. Intel always seems to come up >>> with some way to make their low-cost processors useless (such as limiting >>> the amount of memory they can address). >> >> Careful with AMD, since many (I'm not sure about the latest ones) >> cannot saturate the memory bus when running single-threaded. So, great >> if you have a high concurrent workload, quite bad if you don't. > > Conversely, we often got MUCH better parallel performance from our > quad 12 core opteron servers than I could get on a dual 8 core xeon at > the time. The newest quad 10 core Intels are about as fast as the > quad 12 core opteron from 3 years ago. So for parallel operation, do > remember to look at the opteron. It was much cheaper to get highly > parallel operation on the opterons than the xeons at the time we got > the quad 12 core machine at my last job. > But what about latency, not throughput? -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
