Re: quad cores?

["Derek Atkins" <user=54@nabble.blu.org>]

 I'd love to see someone benchmark the various multi-core CPUs when 
the host machine is really just running VMware..  Or does it really 
matter most on what you're doing in the VMs?  I.e., if I'm building 
a VMware host server for VMs to act as a few servers (web/mail/mysql) 
and various build systems, does it really matter if I go Intel v. 
AMD?  I was under the impression that AMD's memory bus utilization was 
significantly better than Intel, and I would guess that VMware would 
be more memory intensive than CPU intensive..  But I dont know. 

Has anyone seen any VM benchmarks? 

-derek 

Daniel Feenberg <[hidden email]> writes: 

> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Mark J. Dulcey wrote: 
> 
>> Stephen Adler wrote: 
>>> The reason I ask is not so much if SMP is supported or not, but all 
>>> the crazy bridge bus chip sets, and interrupt controller chip sets 
>>> etc. etc. When I got my Intel based Core 2 Duo system, (i.e. intel 
>>> motherboard) there was an issue with the current version of the 
>>> kernel and lack of support due to some chip set issue... I can't 
>>> remember how I dealt with it, (some odd boot parameter option or 
>>> something like that.) Has anyone had any experience using a core 2 
>>> quad? Is it worth the extra money? 
>> 
>> The motherboard chip set could be an issue, though it's a separate 
>> one from the processor. Using a new distribution will help. 
>> 
>> I haven't had any personal experience with the quad. What I've heard 
>> is that the extreme (big $$) version isn't worth it unless you 
>> absolutely must have the fastest computer for bragging rights, but 
>> the less expensive ones (like 
> 
> We have 6 of the various Intel Quad-cores, each was the fastest 
> available when purchased. We use them exclusively for floating point 
> (statistical) calculations, and performance at that task is linear in 
> the number of cores. So if you have the right workload, they are 
> worthwhile. 
> 
>> the Q6600 for about $280 or the Q6700 for $545, current MicroCenter 
>> pricing) are worthwhile if your application mix will take advantage 
>> of it (multitasking or multithreaded apps). Although the Intel quads 
>> only offer so-so scaling, 4 cores are still better than two if you 
>> can keep them all working. (On the other hand, the faster dual-core 
>> will probably be better for gaming; an E6750 for $190 or an E6850 
>> for $280 look sweet.) AMD's new Barcelona will scale better, but the 
>> baseline single-core performance isn't as high except perhaps in 
>> scientific computing, because its floating-point performance is very 
>> high. 
>> 
> 
> Oor next purchase will probably be AMD, for this reason. 
> 
> Dan Feenberg 
> 
>> Intel will have true quad-core processors (four cores on one chip 
>> rather than two chips in an MCM) next year, and those will be faster 
>> and scale better. But isn't that always the way?