Re: hardware advice
От | David Boreham |
---|---|
Тема | Re: hardware advice |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5064C033.90506@boreham.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: hardware advice (Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: hardware advice
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 9/27/2012 2:47 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote: > 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!) Yes, the "rate" spec test uses all the available cores. I'm assuming a concurrent workload, but since the single-thread performance isn't that much different between the two I think the higher number of cores, larger cache, newer design CPU is the best choice. > > 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. We use Opteron on a price/performance basis. Intel always seems to come up with some way to make their low-cost processors useless (such as limiting the amount of memory they can address).
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: