X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278749FB338 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:46:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56159-05 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:46:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from gollum.cambrium.nl (mx1.cambrium.nl [217.19.16.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CAA09FB2A7 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:44:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 2164 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2006 12:44:40 -0000 Received: from office.tweakers.net (HELO ?10.0.0.169?) (84.245.2.46) by gollum.cambrium.nl with SMTP; 8 Sep 2006 12:44:40 -0000 Message-ID: <45016590.6050905@tweakers.net> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:44:00 +0200 From: Arjen van der Meijden User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cramer CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with References: <450104C8.2070709@tweakers.net> <398A981F-5DE4-4845-ACF7-BB5777CECF05@fastcrypt.com> In-Reply-To: <398A981F-5DE4-4845-ACF7-BB5777CECF05@fastcrypt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.135 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200609/45 X-Sequence-Number: 20731 Dave Cramer wrote: > Hi, Arjen, > > >> The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons. Actually... >> With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-processor is also >> faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But then again, it is the >> top-model Dempsey and not a top-model Opteron so that isn't a clear win. >> Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the >> Dempsey's as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's before that. > > Why wouldn't you use a top of the line Opteron ? What do you mean by this question? Why we didn't test the Opteron 285 instead of the 280? Well, its not that you can just go up to a hardware supplier and pick exactly the system you want to review/benchmar... especially not with pre-production hardware that (at the time) wasn't very widely available. Normally, you just get what system they have available at their marketing or pre-sales department. The Opteron 280 was from an earlier review and was fitted in the "Try and Buy"-version of the Sun Fire x4200. In that system; you only have a few options where the 280 was the fastest at the time. But then again, systems with the Woodcrest 5150 (the subtop one) and Opteron 280 (also the subtop one) are about equal in price, so its not a bad comparison in a bang-for-bucks point of view. The Dempsey was added to show how both the Opteron and the newer Woodcrest would compete against that one. Best regards, Arjen