On Friday 08 July 2005 17:34, Bruno Delbono wrote: > I'm really sorry to start this thread again but I found something very > interesting I thought everyone should ^at least^ have a look at: > > http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/06/4-dual-xeon-vs-e4500.html > > This article takes into account a comparision of 4 dual xeon vs. e4500. > The author (not me!) talks about "A Shootout Between Sun E4500 and a > Linux Redhat3.0 AS Cluster Using Oracle10g [the cluster walks away > limping]" Bruno, you can make benchmarks say whatever you want - and this one seems to be one of the worst distortions I've seen in a while. I know from personal experience that this isn't even close. dual xeon 2.0Ghz/4GB is about the same performance as a quad 450Mhz E4500/4GB in everything we're doing... The TPC-C benchmarks (only official, impartial benchmarks I could find) are even worse: dual 3.6Ghz scored 63464 14 way 464Mhz E4500 scored 67103 Oracle has a word doc on their website talking about performance of a E4500 vs a Dell box (http://download-west.oracle.com/owsf_2003/Oracleworld2003.doc) where a quad xeon beats a quad E4500 by about 60% - and that was a quad 700Mhz P3 based Xeon... Go search google for Xeon and E4500 and you'll see tons more of these benchmarks - and they all tell the same story... Peter.