On 8-9-2006 15:01 Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>> 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?
Actually, its not in this benchmark. Its not a large enough dataset to
put any pressure on IO, not even with just 2GB of memory.
But, to display it more acurately have a look here:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/638/2 and then scroll down to the bottom-graph.
As you can see, the 8GB-version was faster, but not that much to call it
'severely'. Unfortunately, the system just wasn't very stable with that
8GB memory (it was other memory, not just more). So we couldn't finish
much benchmarks with it and decided, partially based on this graph to
just go for the 4GB.
Anyway, you can always compare the results of the Woodcrest with the Sun
Fire x4200-results (called 'Opteron DDR' or 'Opteron 940' in the latest
article) to see how a Opteron with 8GB of memory compares to the Woodcrest.
More of those results can be found in this english article:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/638
And in this Dutch one:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/633