[CentOS] OT: 4 dual cores agains 2 quad cores

Erick Perez eaperezh at gmail.com
Mon Sep 3 08:13:54 UTC 2007

On 9/1/07, Peter Arremann <loony at 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 at 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

Erick Perez


More information about the CentOS mailing list