Re: UltraSPARC versus AMD - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com
Subject Re: UltraSPARC versus AMD
Date
Msg-id OFCB3FE334.154506BE-ON05256FEB.0055A274-05256FEB.00564DD0@ftw.us.ray.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: UltraSPARC versus AMD  (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>)
Responses Re: UltraSPARC versus AMD  (William Yu <wyu@talisys.com>)
List pgsql-general

pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 04/22/2005 10:08:46 AM:

> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:48, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com wrote:
> > I just got done comparing SPECMarks (on spec.org) between Sun's AMD
entry
> > level servers versus similarly configured UltraSPARCs versus desktop
AMD
> > based machines.  Sun's AMD machines are twice as fast as their
UItraSPARCs,
> > for approximately the same price.  What a hoot.
>
> Wow.  I'd certainly like to see the numbers and such from your
> benchmarks.  I have to say I'm not surprised, the 64 bit AMD chips are
> quite impressive pieces of hardware.

The benchmarks aren't mine, they're standard performance evaluation (SPEC)
defined by spec.org

http://www.spec.org

Click on the desired benchmark (I was referring to the CPU benchmarks) and
click on "published results".

The manufacturers (Sun, Dell, HP, etc.) buy the benchmarks, configure their
best compiler for speed, run them, and submit the results.  My point is
that Sun ran the benchmarks, under very strict rules set forth by SPEC.

Rick

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Table modifications with dependent views - best
Next
From: Sven Willenberger
Date:
Subject: plperl function fails to "fire" Slony trigger