Post reply

AMD vs Intel

  • September 1, 2005 at 6:14 am

    #168155

    I've recently been attempting to put into production some Itanium based

    servers. I'm running (amongst other things) Remedy, which means highly

    serialised transactions (thus limiting the effect of the Itanium) and has

    lead me to discover that the low clock speed on the Itanium is causing the

    application to run slower (the biggest test of this was a basic bulk insert

    into a table with no indexes that would run 50% slower on a 4x1.6GHZ

    Itanium vs a 2x2.4GHZ Xeon).

    I'm now looking into going to back to a 32bit system, folks are touting the

    benefits of the Opteron processor as opposed to the Xeon, stating that the

    performance difference is pretty large.

    My question is, does the slower clock speed on the Opteron translate into

    the same problems that I was experiencing on the Itanium, or am I actually

    going to find better i/o performance through the AMD processor?

    Thanks for any ideas.


    Shamless self promotion - read my blog http://sirsql.net

  • September 1, 2005 at 7:46 am

    #586818

    I know this MAY cause a lengthy discussion but here goes:

    AMD 64bit is FASTER then Intel 64BIT when handling 32 BIT applications.

    AMD will run 32BIT as fast with their 64BIT chips as their 32BIT chips

    Intel runs 32BIT applications slower with their 64BIT chips then their 32BIT chips.

    Plenty of articles about this are out there.  I think it has to do with AMD handles it via firmware vs. Intel that handles it via software (but I could be wrong).



    Good Hunting!

    AJ Ahrens


    webmaster@kritter.net

  • September 1, 2005 at 7:49 am

    #586821

    Thing is that HP are throwing benchmark figures at me that show the AMD as outperforming the Intel.

    Trouble is that TPccs are not always a true reflection of a production environment, especially for something to serialised as Remedy.


    Shamless self promotion - read my blog http://sirsql.net

  • September 1, 2005 at 3:45 pm

    #587053

    I gues then that I agree with HP...



    Good Hunting!

    AJ Ahrens


    webmaster@kritter.net

  • September 2, 2005 at 2:22 am

    #587107

    I agree with you. AMD is pretty much faster than intel processors. I myslef has tested both of them. right now I have AMD athlon 64bit processor. and it runs 32 application approx 10% faster as compared with intel processor.

    Thats There's something I would call as "Intel inside and idiot outside".

    whatever tha HP has claimed is true.

     

    Regards,
    NEO

  • September 2, 2005 at 2:29 am

    #587110

    See this for some AMD vs Xeon specs on DBMS (not SQL)

    http://www.anandtech.com/it/

    AMD are quicker , generally, but say that and you get flamed.

    Internal architecture aside, one of the biggest reasons is the point to point front side bus not a shared FSB like Intel so less memory contention. Why u think Intel have huge L2 and L3 caches?

    This also means 2, way, 4, way and higher scale better...

    I run AMD 64 at home (for half life 2, really hehe) so my money is where my mouth is...

  • September 2, 2005 at 5:23 am

    #587141

    I have trouble believing in anything HP say right now. It took them several months to get me the answers as to why the Itaniums were not performing.

    I guess my best bet is to get some answers from their lab, then get them in and do some trial work on my own. Just a lot of time that I don't want to waste.


    Shamless self promotion - read my blog http://sirsql.net

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply