Dual CPU w/Dual Core or single core with dual CPU

Hello everyone,
I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
2mb cache.
Thanks,
Nick
You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64 bit
edition on them.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
|||Thanks for the reply.
I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still wondering
if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core /dual cpu 3.4?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
> bit edition on them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual processors
there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under your exact
conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ processors (dual core
or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ ones. All other things
equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
> /dual cpu 3.4?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
Nick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Are you queries compute intensive? Is your CPU a bottleneck? There is no
way to answer this as a generic configuration. It all depends upon what you
are doing on the system. Just because a processor is dual core doesn't mean
you get the equivalent of 2 processors. You get more processing capacity on
a single die, but it doesn't double.
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
|||Nick wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
> 2mb cache.
you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
2 slower processors.
|||Nick,
I am a little confused now as to what you originally meant.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Is the 2.8 two dual core procs or a single dual core proc? If it is indeed
two dual cores then you basically have 4 processors vs the two of the
3.4GHZ. So that would probably be my choice if you have multiple concurrent
users or lots of parallel queries.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OCIDZRtFGHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
> Nick
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2 cache,
no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2 cache, and
up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In addition each
of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting in 8 Virtual
CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will produce, thus handling
twice as many threads simultaneously as the 3.4Ghz - and after all, the
speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly faster than the first PIII's.
Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.c om> wrote in
message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting
> in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will
> produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly
> faster than the first PIII's.
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
> Google is your friend!
> http://www.google.com
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>