Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:19:30 +1300 From: Richard MAHONEY <r.mahoney@iconz.co.nz> To: Ken Gunderson <kgunders@teamcool.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dual vs single core opteron 100's Message-ID: <1138141170.10892.2.camel@proliant> In-Reply-To: <20060124110334.40e81208.kgunders@teamcool.net> References: <20060124110334.40e81208.kgunders@teamcool.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 07:03, Ken Gunderson wrote: > Greets Everyone: > > I was getting into a discussion the other day about this and decided to > see what the FBSD amd64 gurus had to say about it. Given approximately > equal cost of, for example, a single core Opteron150 (2.4GHz) and a > dual core Opteron165 (1.8GHz) under what kind of situations would > one be preferred over the other? > > fwiw- my friend asserts it will ALWAYS be the faster single core because > of context switches and dual cores are optimized for highly multi- > threaded OS's (e.g. WInblows). But 1) I think the scheduler has been > improved in 6.0, and 2) he's a linuxer. For Sun's take on the advantages of multi-core CPUs you might like to look at what they have to say about the T2000: http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t2000/ Best, Richard MAHONEY -- Richard MAHONEY | internet: http://indica-et-buddhica.org Littledene | telephone/telefax (man.): ++64 3 312 1699 Bay Road | cellular: ++64 27 482 9986 OXFORD, NZ | e-mail: r.mahoney[use"@"]iconz.co.nz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1138141170.10892.2.camel>