On 8-Sep-06, at 8:44 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
Hi, Arjen,
The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons.
Actually... With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-
processor is also faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But
then again, it is the top-model Dempsey and not a top-model
Opteron so that isn't a clear win.
Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the
Dempsey's as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's
before that.
Why wouldn't you use a top of the line Opteron ?
What do you mean by this question? Why we didn't test the Opteron
285 instead of the 280?
Yes, that is the question.
Well, its not that you can just go up to a hardware supplier and
pick exactly the system you want to review/benchmar... especially
not with pre-production hardware that (at the time) wasn't very
widely available.
Normally, you just get what system they have available at their
marketing or pre-sales department.
Understandable.
The Opteron 280 was from an earlier review and was fitted in the
"Try and Buy"-version of the Sun Fire x4200. In that system; you
only have a few options where the 280 was the fastest at the time.
But then again, systems with the Woodcrest 5150 (the subtop one)
and Opteron 280 (also the subtop one) are about equal in price, so
its not a bad comparison in a bang-for-bucks point of view. The
Dempsey was added to show how both the Opteron and the newer
Woodcrest would compete against that one.
Did I read this correctly that one of the Opterons in the test only
had 4G of ram vs 7 G in the Intel boxes ? If so this is a severely
limiting factor for postgresql at least?
Dave
Best regards,
Arjen
