Good to know. We have been waiting for performance comparisons on the new Intel CPUs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > On 31-7-2006 17:52, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > On 7/31/06, Jonathan Ballet <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I've read a lot of mails here saying how good is the Opteron with > >> PostgreSQL, > >> and a lot of people seems to recommend it (instead of Xeon). > > > > I am a huge fan of the opteron but intel certainly seems to have a > > winner for workstations. from my research on a per core basis the c2d > > is a stronger chip with the 4mb cache version but it is unclear which > > is a better choice for pg on 4 and 8 core platforms. I have direct > > personal experience with pg on dual (4 core) and quad (8 core) opteron > > and the performance is fantastic, especially on 64 bit o/s with > 2gb > > memory (vs 32 bit xeon). > > As far as I know there is no support for more than two Woodcrest > processors (Core 2 version of the Xeon) in a system. So when using a > scalable application (like postgresql) and you need more than four > cores, Opteron is still the only option in the x86 world. > > The Woodcrest however is faster than a comparably priced Opteron using > Postgresql. In a benchmark we did (and have yet to publish) a Woodcrest > system outperforms a comparable Sun Fire x4200. And even if you'd adjust > it to a clock-by-clock comparison, Woodcrest would still beat the > Opteron. If you'd adjust it to a price/performance comparison (I > configured a HP DL 380G5-system which is similar to what we tested on > their website), the x4200 would loose as well. Mind you a Opteron 280 > 2.4Ghz or 285 2.6Ghz costs more than a Woodcrest 5150 2.66Ghz or 5160 > 3Ghz (resp.), but the FB-Dimm memory for the Xeons is more expensive > than the DDR or DDR2 ECC REG memory you need in a Opteron. > > > also opteron is 64 bit and mature so i think is a better choice for > > server platform at the moment, especially for databases. my mind > > could be changed but it is too soon right now. consider how long it > > took for the opteron to prove itself in the server world. > > Intel Woodcrest can do 64-bit as well. As can all recent Xeons. Whether > Opteron does a better job at 64-bit than a Xeon, I don't know (our test > was in 64-bit though). I have not seen our Xeon 64-bits production > servers be any less stable than our Opteron 64-bit servers. > For a database system, however, processors hardly ever are the main > bottleneck, are they? So you should probably go for a set of "fast > processors" from your favorite supplier and focus mainly on lots of > memory and fast disks. Whether that employs Opterons or Xeon Woodcrest > (no other Xeons are up to that competition, imho) doesn't really matter. > > We'll be publishing the article in the near future, and I'll give a > pointer to it (even though it will be in Dutch, you can still read the > graphs). > > Best regards, > > Arjen van der Meijden > Tweakers.net > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend -- Bruce Momjian bruce@xxxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
