Message-ID: <4577F8A2.4090605@tweakers.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:18:58 +0100
From: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mindaugas <mind@bi.lt>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Core 2 or Opteron
References: <019401c719e9$07449d00$f20214ac@bite.lt>
	<4577ED1C.1040600@tweakers.net>
	<01b701c719ef$9e73b610$f20214ac@bite.lt>
In-Reply-To: <01b701c719ef$9e73b610$f20214ac@bite.lt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1257; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 7-12-2006 12:05 Mindaugas wrote:
>  Now about 2 core vs 4 core Woodcrest. For HP DL360 I see similarly 
> priced dual core 5160@3GHz and four core E5320@1.86Ghz. According to 
> article's scaling data PostgreSQL performance should be similar (1.86GHz 
> * 2 * 80% = ~3GHz). And quad core has slightly slower FSB (1066 vs 1333).
> 
>  So it looks like more likely dual core 5160 Woodrest is the way to go 
> if I want "ultimate" performance on two sockets?
>  Besides that I think it should consume a bit less power!?

I think that's the better choice yes. I've seen the X5355 (quad core 
2.66Ghz) in work and that one is faster than the 5160 we tested. But its 
not as much faster as the extra ghz' could imply, so the 5320 would very 
likely not outperform the 5160. At least not in our postgresql benchmark.
Besides that you end up with a slower FSB for more cores (1333 / 2 = 666 
per core, 1066 / 4 = 266 per core!) while there will be more traffic 
since the seperate "dual cores" on the quad core communicate via the bus 
and there are more cores so there is also in an absolute sence more 
cache coherency traffic...

So I'd definitely go with the 5160 or perhaps just the 5150 if the 
savings can allow for better I/O or more memory.

Best regards,

Arjen