On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 08:35:23AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: > On Thursday, March 11, 2010 01:41 AM, Eduardo Grosclaude wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Christopher Chan > > <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> wrote: > > > >> On the Intel side, a dual socket solution > >> will even outperform a quad socket solution so if one is looking for > >> Intel cpu solutions, dual socket is the only sensible choice. But that > > > > Wow, that's a pretty impressive statement, can you elaborate on that? > > Intel does not have a NUMA architecture solution for quad socket boards > yet and so bus contention kills scaling on quad socket Intel solutions. > Right now, AMD owns the quad socket market when it comes to performance. > > > > You mean, for every possible workload? Is it something you learned > > from direct experience, or have you read about it? If so, where? If > > from experience, what was the general setup, applications, etc? > > Anandtech did some testing last quarter where they compared what appears > to be the best quad socket Intel solution against the best dual socket > Intel solution and the dual socket solution ran circles around the quad > in some tests and pretty much matches it in other tests. > > http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3653&p=1 > > According to the article, Intel will be coming out with something that > will scale at the quad socket level some time this year so things are > probably going to change on this front. > Nehalem-EX ? I think all the big server vendors have been announcing new products based on those last week, this week, or next week. -- Pasi