Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Date
Msg-id 1145990551.23538.244.camel@state.g2switchworks.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs  (mark@mark.mielke.cc)
Responses Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs  (David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>)
Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs  (mark@mark.mielke.cc)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:38, mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:38PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > Sad, cause the AMD is, on a price / performance scale, twice the
> > processor for the same money as the Intel.
>
> Maybe a year or two ago. Prices are all coming down. Intel more
> than AMD.
>
> AMD still seems better - but not X2, and it depends on the workload.
>
> X2 sounds like biggotry against Intel... :-)

Actually, that was from an article from this last month that compared
the dual core intel to the amd.  for every dollar spent on the intel,
you got about half the performance of the amd.  Not bigotry.  fact.

But don't believe me or the other people who've seen the difference.  Go
buy the Intel box.  No skin off my back.



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: mark@mark.mielke.cc
Date:
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs