RE: Physical CPU? or multicore?

From: Amar Kumar Padhi <amar.padhi_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:04:31 +0400 (GST)
Message-ID: <89381.6511240927256123.JavaMail.seven_at_aomfe1p1>

We follow the below formula:-
Hyperthreading = approx 25% more power than one non-core Cpu. 2 cores = approx 40% more power than one non-core Cpu.

I arrived at the above based on some web posted benchmarkings and internal testing.

So, if you have eight cores, it would round up to about 5.5 standard Cpu power approx. No matter what the sales guys tell you, 8 cores on one socket is not equivalent of 8 non-core standard Cpus. On the other hand, 8 cores are much cheaper to buy compared to its equivalent 6 standard Cpus.

Thanks!
Amar
Www.amar-Padhi.com

-original message-

 Physical CPU? or multicore?
From: "Karl Arao" <karlarao_at_gmail.com> Date: 27-04-2009 15:23

 With the release of Intel (Nehalem) 5500 series, which is 45nm and I believe also supports multicore and hyperthreading. There are some things going on my mind..So from a single socket (Nehalem), quad core and HT enabled. You could see 8 processors when you do cat /proc/cpuinfo

 But, from the performance perspective. Which is better?

 Having 8 physical CPUs? Or Having 1 Physical CPU with quad core and HT enabled?

 (Well, we know the license implications of 8 physical CPUs).. :)

 But for the performance engineers and capacity planners. I'd like to hear your opinion.

• Karl Arao

karlarao.wordpress.com

--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Tue Apr 28 2009 - 09:04:31 CDT