Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:49:50 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> Subject: Re: AMD or Intel? Message-ID: <46E8DD8E.8070706@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070913032800.GO79417@elvis.mu.org> References: <E6C9DBADAE3839B380B736D7@rambutan.pingpong.net> <20070910224503.GO79417@elvis.mu.org> <46E5D402.8060305@FreeBSD.org> <20070913032800.GO79417@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> [070910 16:32] wrote: >> Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>> Palle, >>> >>> I really haven't kept pace with Intel versus AMD in a while, my >>> understanding is that AMD is still the only 64bit game in town. >>> >>> For a database, the more memory you can get, the better. >>> >>> I've found many machines with 4 gigs of ram to not be enough to >>> get decent performance from a database these days. >>> >>> I would suggest going with AMD and getting a board that can >>> do at least 8GB if not 16 or even 32GB of ram. >>> >>> Even with what I've been hearing in this thread about a 20% speed >>> difference with Intel parts, you will totally be ruined once you >>> hit the 4GB barrier on your Intel hardware. >> That's actually not true, intel came out with their first amd64 clone >> (which they call "EM64T") something like 3 or 4 years ago. I cannot say >> from first hand experience but I have heard that their current >> generation is solidly outperforming amd64. > > Actually, what I said was true, it was my understanding that was > wrong. :) > > I guess the answer I was trying to say was, go for whatever > gives you room for a lot of RAM. > Yep, that is still good advice. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46E8DD8E.8070706>