Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- From: Mike Jakubik <mikej@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:02 -0400
David Gilbert wrote:
This isn't random. As I understand the issue, the Opteron HT bus
handles synchronization much faster. So for a game --- this doesn't
matter ... games don't (usually) need sync. Databases, however, live
on synchonizaton. If you're a Dell man (and already paying the Dell
tax), consider the Sun 1U's. They offer up to 4 cores in a 1U.
Sure, the HTT bus is wonderful. Intel will raise the FSB to 1067, but i still think we will see significant performance improvements on the new Core architecture. The Conroe CPU throughly trashes an AMD Athlon-X2 at a "higher" frequency. For those interested:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713
As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when socket AM2 comes out.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- From: Martin Nilsson
- Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- From: Steven Hartland
- Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- References:
- Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- From: Bill Moran
- Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- From: Steven Hartland
- Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- From: Mike Jakubik
- Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- From: David Gilbert
- Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- Prev by Date: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- Next by Date: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- Previous by thread: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- Next by thread: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|