Message-ID: <5064BB66.2080202@optionshouse.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:47:34 -0500
From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Reply-To: <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Organization: Peak6
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
	rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
CC: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: hardware advice
References: <5064A4DC.5090304@turnkey.bz> <5064ABA1.7030507@boreham.org>
In-Reply-To: <5064ABA1.7030507@boreham.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 09/27/2012 02:40 PM, David Boreham wrote:

> I think the newer CPU is the clear winner with a specintrate
> performance of 589 vs 432.

The comparisons you linked to had 24 absolute threads pitted against 32, 
since the newer CPUs have a higher maximum cores per CPU. That said, 
you're right that it has a fairly large cache. And from my experience, 
Intel CPU generations have been scaling incredibly well lately. 
(Opteron, we hardly knew ye!)

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.

Me? I'm waiting for Haswell, the next "tock" in Intel's Tick-Tock strategy.

-- 
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email