On 8-Sep-06, at 8:44 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>> Hi, Arjen,
>>> The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons.
>>> Actually... With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-
>>> processor is also faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But
>>> then again, it is the top-model Dempsey and not a top-model
>>> Opteron so that isn't a clear win.
>>> Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the
>>> Dempsey's as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's
>>> before that.
>> Why wouldn't you use a top of the line Opteron ?
>
> What do you mean by this question? Why we didn't test the Opteron
> 285 instead of the 280?
Yes, that is the question.
>
> Well, its not that you can just go up to a hardware supplier and
> pick exactly the system you want to review/benchmar... especially
> not with pre-production hardware that (at the time) wasn't very
> widely available.
> Normally, you just get what system they have available at their
> marketing or pre-sales department.
Understandable.
>
> The Opteron 280 was from an earlier review and was fitted in the
> "Try and Buy"-version of the Sun Fire x4200. In that system; you
> only have a few options where the 280 was the fastest at the time.
>
> But then again, systems with the Woodcrest 5150 (the subtop one)
> and Opteron 280 (also the subtop one) are about equal in price, so
> its not a bad comparison in a bang-for-bucks point of view. The
> Dempsey was added to show how both the Opteron and the newer
> Woodcrest would compete against that one.
Did I read this correctly that one of the Opterons in the test only
had 4G of ram vs 7 G in the Intel boxes ? If so this is a severely
limiting factor for postgresql at least?
Dave
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arjen
>