Re: Physical CPU? or multicore?
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:52:59 +0300
In my opinion, It will depend on the hardware architecture also. For instance, HP enterprise systems consist of cells(usually). Each cell contain some size of memory and a number of CPUs. Thus, if an operation uses CPU which requires more than a number of CPU which a cell contains, it will use the CPU on the other cell board. This means performance degradation due to the interconnection overhead between cell boards.
Thus, a system having 8 CPUs which is multi-threaded may be better than 4+4 CPU in two cells or boards.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Karl Arao <karlarao_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> (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