April 10, 2008 at 11:50 am
which one is faster?
2Gig CPU + 15.4GB ram
or
3.06Gig CPU + 7.75GB ram
April 10, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Depends on what you're doing and on how many cores the CPUs have.
If they both have the same number of cores, then the 3Ghz CPU will probably be faster than the 2Ghz CPU (assuming they use the same technology), unless you use more RAM than the 3Ghz has available. If, for example, your server needs 12 Gig of RAM to process something, then the one with less RAM will start using the hard drive (tempdb and/or swap file), which will slow it down a LOT. On the other hand, if you'll only use 7 Gig of RAM, then the 3Ghz CPU will be faster.
Just to overexplain it a bit more, the 3Ghz CPU will be slower if it's a single-core Pentium, and the 2Ghz is a quad-core Xeon. Even with the same number of cores, a lower Ghz Core Duo is often faster than a higher Ghz Pentium.
But, all other things being equal, it will depend on how much RAM you need to use.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
April 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm
It doesn't work like that sadly. In general terms the processor clock speed will impact execution time, so a single threaded call to a 2.2Ghz quad will run slower than a single 3.2Ghz single proc. The cores will only help to make parallel plans go faster, notwithstanding more cores handle more requests.
Memory usually only offsets physical io, but in general terms more memory will reduce io so the more memory is probably the better option - depends on the size of your database(s) too and the sql editions. For an equal number of cores I'd go 3.4Gb hz duals or singles over a quad any day
( e.g. 1 x quad = 4 x single = 2 x dual ) as two singles outperform 1 dual as 2 duals outperform 1 quad - assuming some sort of equality of the various cache levels.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
April 10, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I'd rather have more memory so more data can be cached. Also, no matter how fast the processor is, bad code (usually some form of RBAR) is the great equalizer. O've seen lots of folks go for the faster CPU for more $$$ thinking that it would fix the world only to be disappointed by little or no performance gains.
Want a better server... buy the lower cost one and spend the savings on sending the devlopers to an SQL school that actually teaches set based programming properly. Good check is to interview the teachers of such a school... first question should be "How do you make a numbers table"... correct answer should NOT have an explict loop of any kind. Next question would be, "What have you used a numbers/tally table for?" Should be 4 or more things. Another good question would be "What is set based programming?" If the answer is "doing things in a single query", run like hell.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 11, 2008 at 12:16 am
escaleraroyal (4/10/2008)
which one is faster?2Gig CPU + 15.4GB ram
or
3.06Gig CPU + 7.75GB ram
Faster for what?
What size DB do you have? OLTP or Datawarehouse style usage
How many concurrent users?
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
April 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Jeff you are so right!
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply