X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEDF11F620A for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:16:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23971-09 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:16:14 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:17:32.710647 by SQLgrey- Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAA311F61C9 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:16:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from skunk.mtbrook.bozemanpass.com (unknown [69.145.82.195]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BA65B31ED for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:58:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [69.145.82.218] (unknown [69.145.82.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by skunk.mtbrook.bozemanpass.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301935584C6 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <444E7F47.3010003@boreham.org> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:57:59 -0600 From: David Boreham Reply-To: david_list@boreham.org User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs References: <20060425141435.6c8c163c.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <1145990018.23538.234.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <20060425183817.GA9241@mark.mielke.cc> <1145990551.23538.244.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> In-Reply-To: <1145990551.23538.244.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020801060700020202050706" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200604/573 X-Sequence-Number: 18657 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020801060700020202050706 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >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. --------------020801060700020202050706 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.


--------------020801060700020202050706--