With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
than the other.
Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..Typically Disk throughput is your bottleneck in SQL Server OLTP. Spend your
primary budget a bigger/faster disk subsystem. Then spend on memory.
As far as CPU's are concerned; Buy the ones with the larger L2 and L3 on-die
cache.
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23w2EGcnRHHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>|||Hassan wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
Check TPC, most recently publiched TPC-C results
(http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpc...ten_results.asp). HP has some
AMD and Intel based servers there.
Arto Viitanen, CSC Ltd.
Espoo, Finland|||Check tthis out: Some interesting comparision Charts
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
Maninder
MCDBA|||The infrastructure engineering group of any large enterprise would be remiss
in its duties if this sort of tests are not done internally. But the result
of such a study is almost always for internal consumption only and is rarely
published.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
>
Showing posts with label intel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intel. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
AMDs or Intels..
With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
than the other.
Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
Typically Disk throughput is your bottleneck in SQL Server OLTP. Spend your
primary budget a bigger/faster disk subsystem. Then spend on memory.
As far as CPU's are concerned; Buy the ones with the larger L2 and L3 on-die
cache.
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23w2EGcnRHHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
|||Hassan wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
Check TPC, most recently publiched TPC-C results
(http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_last_ten_results.asp). HP has some
AMD and Intel based servers there.
Arto Viitanen, CSC Ltd.
Espoo, Finland
|||Check tthis out: Some interesting comparision Charts
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
Maninder
MCDBA
|||The infrastructure engineering group of any large enterprise would be remiss
in its duties if this sort of tests are not done internally. But the result
of such a study is almost always for internal consumption only and is rarely
published.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
>
sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
than the other.
Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
Typically Disk throughput is your bottleneck in SQL Server OLTP. Spend your
primary budget a bigger/faster disk subsystem. Then spend on memory.
As far as CPU's are concerned; Buy the ones with the larger L2 and L3 on-die
cache.
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23w2EGcnRHHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
|||Hassan wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
Check TPC, most recently publiched TPC-C results
(http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_last_ten_results.asp). HP has some
AMD and Intel based servers there.
Arto Viitanen, CSC Ltd.
Espoo, Finland
|||Check tthis out: Some interesting comparision Charts
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
Maninder
MCDBA
|||The infrastructure engineering group of any large enterprise would be remiss
in its duties if this sort of tests are not done internally. But the result
of such a study is almost always for internal consumption only and is rarely
published.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
>
AMDs or Intels..
With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
than the other.
Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..Typically Disk throughput is your bottleneck in SQL Server OLTP. Spend your
primary budget a bigger/faster disk subsystem. Then spend on memory.
As far as CPU's are concerned; Buy the ones with the larger L2 and L3 on-die
cache.
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23w2EGcnRHHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>|||Hassan wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
Check TPC, most recently publiched TPC-C results
(http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_last_ten_results.asp). HP has some
AMD and Intel based servers there.
--
Arto Viitanen, CSC Ltd.
Espoo, Finland|||Check tthis out: Some interesting comparision Charts
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
Maninder
MCDBA|||The infrastructure engineering group of any large enterprise would be remiss
in its duties if this sort of tests are not done internally. But the result
of such a study is almost always for internal consumption only and is rarely
published.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
>
sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
than the other.
Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..Typically Disk throughput is your bottleneck in SQL Server OLTP. Spend your
primary budget a bigger/faster disk subsystem. Then spend on memory.
As far as CPU's are concerned; Buy the ones with the larger L2 and L3 on-die
cache.
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23w2EGcnRHHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>|||Hassan wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
Check TPC, most recently publiched TPC-C results
(http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_last_ten_results.asp). HP has some
AMD and Intel based servers there.
--
Arto Viitanen, CSC Ltd.
Espoo, Finland|||Check tthis out: Some interesting comparision Charts
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
Maninder
MCDBA|||The infrastructure engineering group of any large enterprise would be remiss
in its duties if this sort of tests are not done internally. But the result
of such a study is almost always for internal consumption only and is rarely
published.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> With all the latest in dual cores and quad cores and 2 sockets and 4
> sockets, has anyone done any hard core test say on an Intel 2 socket dual
> core vs AMD 2 socket dual core and can really tell if SQL is faster on one
> than the other.
> Also if one has done some tests on HP or Dell. Curious to find out..
>
>
AMD vs. INTEL
dear folks,
A few days ago I heard from microsoft’s consultant a great disavantatge between Intel and AMD 64-bit processors when you manage sql25k and obviously other server applications.
He stated that AMD could reach the hightest point around 1TB of RAM otherwise Intel only 64 Gb. AMD have a unique bus for all the processors (40 bit) whereas Intel architecture works in star (34 bit)
Is it true?
TIA
http://www.sqlmag.com/Article/ArticleID/50365/A_Tale_of_Two_Architectures.html|||thanks. we've selected a intel 64-bit cluster for our business as a migration of our old active-active cluster. I don't think that it will be noticeable in terms of our on-daily basis because never have demanded the full capabilities to our system so that...
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.
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.
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 ?
Thanks
On 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 works
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 works
> 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.
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
On 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 works
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 works
> 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.
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:
>> 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 ?
> 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 works
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:
> > On 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 ?
> >
> > 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
>|||On May 4, 9:49 pm, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
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.
> 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 works
> 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:
> > > On 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 ?
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
> - 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.
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:
>> 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 ?
> 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 works
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:
> > On 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 ?
> >
> > 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
>|||On May 4, 9:49 pm, Linchi Shea <LinchiS...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
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.
> 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 works
> 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:
> > > On 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 ?
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
> - 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.
AMD or Intel for SQL Servers..
These days, what chip maker rocks for SQL Servers. I know at some point AMD
was way superior but these days, I hear Intel is catching up too. Curious to
know if anyone has any latest benchmarks on them.It pretty much depends on the day of the week since things change so fast. I
don't think you would be disappointed either way you go.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23EYHB604HHA.5360@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> These days, what chip maker rocks for SQL Servers. I know at some point
> AMD was way superior but these days, I hear Intel is catching up too.
> Curious to know if anyone has any latest benchmarks on them.
>|||Hassan wrote:
> These days, what chip maker rocks for SQL Servers. I know at some point AMD
> was way superior but these days, I hear Intel is catching up too. Curious to
> know if anyone has any latest benchmarks on them.
I would check the power usage and heat generation of the chips you are
considering and compare them to the requirements of your data center.
was way superior but these days, I hear Intel is catching up too. Curious to
know if anyone has any latest benchmarks on them.It pretty much depends on the day of the week since things change so fast. I
don't think you would be disappointed either way you go.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23EYHB604HHA.5360@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> These days, what chip maker rocks for SQL Servers. I know at some point
> AMD was way superior but these days, I hear Intel is catching up too.
> Curious to know if anyone has any latest benchmarks on them.
>|||Hassan wrote:
> These days, what chip maker rocks for SQL Servers. I know at some point AMD
> was way superior but these days, I hear Intel is catching up too. Curious to
> know if anyone has any latest benchmarks on them.
I would check the power usage and heat generation of the chips you are
considering and compare them to the requirements of your data center.
AMD dual Core or Intel XEON
Hi
In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
or
2.Intel xeon is good.
3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware?
Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Kumar
Kumar,
Might try this:
Dell's SQL Server 2000 Sizing Tool quickly and easily helps size your
database to find the right server and storage hardware for your
applications.
HTH
Jerry
"Kumar" <Kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:757C4523-0D67-4777-A667-9ECC335F9323@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
> Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
> But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
> The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
> I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
>
> 1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
> or
> 2.Intel xeon is good.
> 3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware?
>
> Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Kumar
In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
or
2.Intel xeon is good.
3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware?
Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Kumar
Kumar,
Might try this:
Dell's SQL Server 2000 Sizing Tool quickly and easily helps size your
database to find the right server and storage hardware for your
applications.
HTH
Jerry
"Kumar" <Kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:757C4523-0D67-4777-A667-9ECC335F9323@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
> Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
> But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
> The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
> I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
>
> 1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
> or
> 2.Intel xeon is good.
> 3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware?
>
> Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Kumar
AMD dual Core or Intel XEON
Hi
In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
or
2.Intel xeon is good.
3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware'
Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
KumarKumar,
Might try this:
Dell's SQL Server 2000 Sizing Tool quickly and easily helps size your
database to find the right server and storage hardware for your
applications.
HTH
Jerry
"Kumar" <Kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:757C4523-0D67-4777-A667-9ECC335F9323@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
> Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
> But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
> The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
> I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
>
> 1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
> or
> 2.Intel xeon is good.
> 3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware'
>
> Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Kumar
In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
or
2.Intel xeon is good.
3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware'
Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
KumarKumar,
Might try this:
Dell's SQL Server 2000 Sizing Tool quickly and easily helps size your
database to find the right server and storage hardware for your
applications.
HTH
Jerry
"Kumar" <Kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:757C4523-0D67-4777-A667-9ECC335F9323@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
> Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
> But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
> The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
> I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
>
> 1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
> or
> 2.Intel xeon is good.
> 3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware'
>
> Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Kumar
AMD dual Core or Intel XEON
Hi
In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
or
2.Intel xeon is good.
3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware'
Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
KumarKumar,
Might try this:
Dell's SQL Server 2000 Sizing Tool quickly and easily helps size your
database to find the right server and storage hardware for your
applications.
HTH
Jerry
"Kumar" <Kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:757C4523-0D67-4777-A667-9ECC335F9323@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
> Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
> But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
> The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
> I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
>
> 1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
> or
> 2.Intel xeon is good.
> 3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware'
>
> Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Kumar
In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
or
2.Intel xeon is good.
3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware'
Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
KumarKumar,
Might try this:
Dell's SQL Server 2000 Sizing Tool quickly and easily helps size your
database to find the right server and storage hardware for your
applications.
HTH
Jerry
"Kumar" <Kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:757C4523-0D67-4777-A667-9ECC335F9323@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> In our Office,We are building new server for SQL Server.
> Presently we use that server for sql server 2000.
> But in future (in 1 year) we will update to sql server 2005
> The databases we use are for heavy transactional.
> I have the following questions about which hardware to choose.
>
> 1.Is AMD dual Core processor GOOD
> or
> 2.Intel xeon is good.
> 3.What factors we need to look into before deciding sql server hardware'
>
> Any kind of help is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Kumar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)