Hi! On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yeb Havinga wrote: >> >> The rather wierd dip at 5 threads is consistent over multiple tries > > I've seen that twice on 4 core systems now. The spot where there's just one > more thread than cores seems to be the worst case for cache thrashing on a > lot of these servers. > > How much total RAM is in this server? Are all the slots filled? Just > filling in a spreadsheet I have here with sample configs of various > hardware. > > Yeb's results look right to me now. That's what an AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ > 3.00GHz should look like. It's a little faster, memory-wise, than my older > Intel Q6600 @ 2.4GHz. So they've finally caught up with that generation of > Intel's stuff. But my current desktop quad-core i860 with hyperthreading is > nearly twice as fast in terms of memory access at every thread size. That's > why I own one of them instead of a Phenom II X4. your i860? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i860 wow!. :D Now, seriously: what memory (brand/model) does the Q6600 and your newer desktop have? I'm just too curious, last time I was able to run benchmarks myself was with a core2duo and a athlon 64 x2, back then: core2due beated athlon at almost anything. Nowadays, it looks like amd is playing the "more cores for the money" game, but I think that sooner or later they will catchup again, and when that happen: Intel will just get another ET chip, and put on marked,and so on! :D This is a game where the winners are: us! -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
