On 9/1/07, Peter Arremann loony@loonybin.org wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007, Erick Perez wrote:
Hi people, Do you have pointers to web documents that help me make comparisons between buying a server with two quad core 2.33 ghz or buying a 4 dual core 2ghz server? I am trying to answer a question of performance. It is not important the redundancy/failover or the price of the server. Just the performance. obviously all the hardware specs are the same, the question is the CPU.
If you do pure IO workloads, the 4 dual cores are probably going to be as fast as the 2 quads because of the clock differences.
For CPU bound workloads, the quad cores will beat the duals easily because of the higher clock speed (and more efficient caching in case of AMD).
The only other things I would worry about is the number of memory slots. Usually boards that have 4 cpu sockets have a larger number of memory slots too. So if you need lots of ram, you're better off on that.
Peter. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks Peter and thanks to all for the information. It turns out that the several HP Proliant DL380G5 the company is about to buy, will run SQL Server 2000, RHEL 5 w/Tomcat and Exchange 2003.
So it seems that after reading several documents linked here and on the net, Two Xeon Quad Core at a little lower speed will be more efficient that 4 Dual Core Xeons at a little higher speed. And not to mention the benefit of using only two sockets instead of four.
So, I guess i'll go for quad cores. If anyone is interested in benchmarks, please let me know offline at : eaperezh ((at)) gmail ((dot)) com
Thanks,