Re: Physical CPU? or multicore?
- From: Greg Rahn <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:33:39 -0700
I think that many variables have been overlooked (or at least not
mentioned) in this thread. The OP mentioned:
> But, from the performance perspective. Which is better?
> Having 8 physical CPUs? Or Having 1 Physical CPU with quad core and HT
> enabled?
In short the answer is "It depends". The long answer to this question
is much bigger than the two options given. First, it depends on
*what* you are comparing. Not too many CPUs are single core today so
if you want to compare a 1P/1C (P=processor/socket C=core) CPU to a
1P/2C or 1P/4C processor you are either 1) comparing different CPU
architectures or 2) comparing a recent CPU to an older one. When
comparing old vs new there is much more to consider than cores or
clock speed. The big factors that impact this include, but are not
limited to 1) CPU cache (L1/L2/L3) sizes, 2) FSB/Northbridge speeds,
3) memory speeds. Any comparisons are also *very* application
dependent, meaning that one can not generalize on performance as it
depends on which resource was the bottleneck for that given
application.
If you really want to dive into the new Intel Nehalem (which I may add
is awesome!) I would suggest :
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/04/what-you-need-to-know-about-nehalem.ars
http://realworldtech.com/includes/templates/articles.cfm?ArticleID=RWT040208182719&mode=print
--
Regards,
Greg Rahn
http://structureddata.org
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
