X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226A99FB3CD for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 03:19:10 -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 77815-02-2 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 03:18:49 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw02.mi8.com [63.240.6.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2739FB429 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 01:27:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 172.16.1.25 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D2)); Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:27:00 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 7829E76E-BB9E-4995-8473-3C0929DF7DD1 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01HOST03.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 00:27:00 -0400 Received: from 69.181.100.71 ([69.181.100.71]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 04:26:59 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:26:57 -0700 Subject: Re: Performances with new Intel Core* processors From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Vivek Khera" , "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Performances with new Intel Core* processors Thread-Index: Aca1Irlc97H0HCEVEduFdAAWy4o9DA== In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2006 04:27:00.0789 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB9EA650:01C6B522] X-WSS-ID: 68D0079E3782009863-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.635 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200608/2 X-Sequence-Number: 20187 Vivek, On 7/31/06 2:04 PM, "Vivek Khera" wrote: > No, but it *does* matter how fast said processor can sling the memory > around, and in my experience, the opterons have been much better at > that due to the efficiency of the memory transport layer. My Mac laptop with a Core 1 and DDR2 RAM does 2700 MB/s memory bandwidth. The Core 2 also has lower memory latency than the Opteron. That said - Intel still hasn't figured out how to do cache-coherent SMP scaling yet - the Opteron has the outstanding EV6/HTX bus and the cc-numa cache coherency logic working today. - Luke