Leslie Satenstein wrote: > > There is a Queuing theory conclusion that one cpu at speed 2x is better > than two cpus at speed x. > > The reason is that it takes overhead to schedule two and also each cpu can > interfere with the other through locks, or memory access. > > But to reduce power consumption today, the trend is to 2 cpus at speed x. > Increasing the speed causes a disproportionate increase in power > consumption. The two cpu solution generally uses less power. > > What is the difference expected in performance? Frankly, it is hard to > tell, In most cases, it will be ZERO and in other cases (with a lock > wanted by cpu a which is held by cpu b ) it could be 1% to 2%. > > Over an hour, that 1% to 2% would wash out, meaning, you should FORGET > ABOUT IT. > > Go for 2 cpu, shared cache on the die. (Intel or AMD) > Some parts of a process are inherently sequential. Those go at the single processor speed. Amdahl has a limit theorem for parallel processing. Robert McBroom -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-CPUS-versus-one-fast-CPU-tp15346010p15357591.html Sent from the Fedora List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
