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

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

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

Thanks,
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Erick Perez

------------------------------------------------------------