AMD vs Intel for SQL Servers

I know at one time AMD used to be power players for SQL Servers, but of
late, I am hearing that Intel chips are also proving to be efficient.
Can you share what you have seen in your benchmarks on some of the new
models say in the HP space using either Intel or AMD ?
ThanksOn May 3, 6:12 pm, "Hassan" <has...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know at one time AMD used to be power players for SQL Servers, but of
> late, I am hearing that Intel chips are also proving to be efficient.
> Can you share what you have seen in your benchmarks on some of the new
> models say in the HP space using either Intel or AMD ?
> Thanks
We upgraded to AMD 64 bit dual opteron box with 4 gb memory and we
were completely happy with the results. That was almost 2 years ago
and back then AMD sort of swept the market with price and
performance. AMD memory access architecture for processors is far
better than performing then Intel . So I prefer AMD x64 over Intel
EMT and has been implementing most of the sql server and desktops with
AMD x64 processors|||On 04.05.2007 03:10, Bulent wrote:
> On May 3, 6:12 pm, "Hassan" <has...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> We upgraded to AMD 64 bit dual opteron box with 4 gb memory and we
> were completely happy with the results. That was almost 2 years ago
> and back then AMD sort of swept the market with price and
> performance. AMD memory access architecture for processors is far
> better than performing then Intel . So I prefer AMD x64 over Intel
> EMT and has been implementing most of the sql server and desktops with
> AMD x64 processors
Curious: does it really make a difference? I would have guessed that
the capabilities of the IO subsystem are far more important for a DB
server than the CPU.
Kind regards
robert|||> Curious: does it really make a difference? I would have guessed that
> the capabilities of the IO subsystem are far more important for a DB
> server than the CPU.
I would not discount the importance of CPUs to that degree. It's true if
your workload is stressing something else, having more processor power
wouldn't help much. But in general, it pays to find out which processor work
s
best under what circusmstances. There are still many processing intensive
tasks. Plus, vendors are constantly trying to take advantage of the ever
increasing processor power, to trade processing for resources that may be
under stress.
Linchi
"Robert Klemme" wrote:

> On 04.05.2007 03:10, Bulent wrote:
> Curious: does it really make a difference? I would have guessed that
> the capabilities of the IO subsystem are far more important for a DB
> server than the CPU.
> Kind regards
> robert
>|||On May 4, 9:49 pm, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> I would not discount the importance of CPUs to that degree. It's true if
> your workload is stressing something else, having more processor power
> wouldn't help much. But in general, it pays to find out which processor wo
rks
> best under what circusmstances. There are still many processing intensive
> tasks. Plus, vendors are constantly trying to take advantage of the ever
> increasing processor power, to trade processing for resources that may be
> under stress.
> Linchi
>
> "Robert Klemme" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Definitely there is the IO subsystem that's very important for
database servers. The hypertransport technology and direct memory
access that amd based systems use is also far better than Intel.
Bottom line you will get better IO performance. Before you make your
decision check out the those and compare against intel and it's Core2
Duo systems and io, memory access methods.