Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > News > Newsgroups > alt.comp.hardware
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-27-2006, 11:08 PM
Jan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default CPU Cache vs Ghz for database speed?

Looking for a standalone workstation PC for a single user running heavy
database queries, likely Windows 32bit. Is it best to have a CPU with
plenty of cache or plenty of GHZ?

AMD X2 4800 with 2x1MB cache is double the price of X2 5000 2x512KB
cache. But would 1MB cache be much faster than 512KB cache?

Also would Intel be significantly better, usually Intel is a bit more
expensive.

The database system might not have much use for RAM beyond 2GB on
WindowsXP, but cache or Ghz?


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2006, 05:41 PM
Paul
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CPU Cache vs Ghz for database speed?



Jan wrote:
>
> Looking for a standalone workstation PC for a single user running heavy
> database queries, likely Windows 32bit. Is it best to have a CPU with
> plenty of cache or plenty of GHZ?
>
> AMD X2 4800 with 2x1MB cache is double the price of X2 5000 2x512KB
> cache. But would 1MB cache be much faster than 512KB cache?
>
> Also would Intel be significantly better, usually Intel is a bit more
> expensive.
>
> The database system might not have much use for RAM beyond 2GB on
> WindowsXP, but cache or Ghz?


I probably don't understand your application all that well. In a
database situation, there is the client (making the query) and
the database itself (the server). The database itself does a lot
more work per query than the client. If both the client and server
were to live on the same machine, then the problem might be
more "interesting". Otherwise, I would expect the client to be
a pretty lightweight application.

To see the impact of cache in the real world, you could look at
some benchmarks. Here, for example, you can see that the 4800+
beat the 5000+, in converting MSword to PDF. For whatever reason,
the extra cache helped here, much more than the clock rate difference.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=466&chart=189

In other cases, it is just the pure MHz that is helping:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=466&chart=171

Doubling the cache might be worth several hundred MHz of equivalent
performance. But modern processors are pretty fickle when it
comes to collecting on that promise of performance. There
are some games, for example, where extra cache doesn't help.
Thus, the best insurance, is to select the processor with the
highest clock rate as the first priority (for a given architecture
and instruction per clock rating). If someone is "giving the cache away",
then take it.

I would choose the 5000+ unless I had a benchmark, like
the first (counterintuitive) benchmark result, to guide me to a
different choice.

Also, by looking at that table, you can see that the Conroe/Allendale
processors are faster than the processors you are considering.
That is, even though their absolute clock rate is lower than a lot
of other processors in the list. Conroe has better instruction level
parallelism (higher IPC), and you can only compare Conroe clockrates
to other Conroes. Using a benchmark table like the one on Tomshardware
is one way to discover how they all compare, in general computing
terms.

Is it possible to compare existing computers doing queries ?
Do you see any appreciable difference between them ?
Gathering data from your present computing platform may
also help you decide whether client processor speed is a
factor at all. Maybe your most demanding application on the
new machine, is running a web browser.

If the database server is also going to live on that machine,
then you would be best advised to find an entirely different
benchmarking site. Databases are more likely to be benchmarked
on server machines, with an emphasis on supporting multiple users.
You will only occasionally find someone benchmarking a database
on a desktop machine.

Paul

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2006, 09:32 PM
Jan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CPU Cache vs Ghz for database speed?

Server and Client is the same machine as there's only one user. At the
moment I'm using MS-Access which is not a client-server system in the
same way like SQL, might consider SQL in the future when table volume
increases.

Paul wrote:
> Jan wrote:
> >
> > Looking for a standalone workstation PC for a single user running heavy
> > database queries, likely Windows 32bit. Is it best to have a CPU with
> > plenty of cache or plenty of GHZ?
> >
> > AMD X2 4800 with 2x1MB cache is double the price of X2 5000 2x512KB
> > cache. But would 1MB cache be much faster than 512KB cache?
> >
> > Also would Intel be significantly better, usually Intel is a bit more
> > expensive.
> >
> > The database system might not have much use for RAM beyond 2GB on
> > WindowsXP, but cache or Ghz?

>
> I probably don't understand your application all that well. In a
> database situation, there is the client (making the query) and
> the database itself (the server). The database itself does a lot
> more work per query than the client. If both the client and server
> were to live on the same machine, then the problem might be
> more "interesting". Otherwise, I would expect the client to be
> a pretty lightweight application.
>
> To see the impact of cache in the real world, you could look at
> some benchmarks. Here, for example, you can see that the 4800+
> beat the 5000+, in converting MSword to PDF. For whatever reason,
> the extra cache helped here, much more than the clock rate difference.
>
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=466&chart=189
>
> In other cases, it is just the pure MHz that is helping:
>
> http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=466&chart=171
>
> Doubling the cache might be worth several hundred MHz of equivalent
> performance. But modern processors are pretty fickle when it
> comes to collecting on that promise of performance. There
> are some games, for example, where extra cache doesn't help.
> Thus, the best insurance, is to select the processor with the
> highest clock rate as the first priority (for a given architecture
> and instruction per clock rating). If someone is "giving the cache away",
> then take it.
>
> I would choose the 5000+ unless I had a benchmark, like
> the first (counterintuitive) benchmark result, to guide me to a
> different choice.
>
> Also, by looking at that table, you can see that the Conroe/Allendale
> processors are faster than the processors you are considering.
> That is, even though their absolute clock rate is lower than a lot
> of other processors in the list. Conroe has better instruction level
> parallelism (higher IPC), and you can only compare Conroe clockrates
> to other Conroes. Using a benchmark table like the one on Tomshardware
> is one way to discover how they all compare, in general computing
> terms.
>
> Is it possible to compare existing computers doing queries ?
> Do you see any appreciable difference between them ?
> Gathering data from your present computing platform may
> also help you decide whether client processor speed is a
> factor at all. Maybe your most demanding application on the
> new machine, is running a web browser.
>
> If the database server is also going to live on that machine,
> then you would be best advised to find an entirely different
> benchmarking site. Databases are more likely to be benchmarked
> on server machines, with an emphasis on supporting multiple users.
> You will only occasionally find someone benchmarking a database
> on a desktop machine.
>
> Paul



Reply With Quote
Reply


« USB print server and scanner? | Vista Useage Restrictions »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E50 USB file transfer speed Dmitriy.Ovdienko@gmail.com alt.cellular.nokia 0 03-31-2007 08:31 AM
SPA-2100: Setting up Speed Dial? ian uk.telecom.voip 2 02-18-2007 12:27 PM
Wireless router slows Internet speed stephen435@gmail.com alt.internet.wireless 9 10-10-2006 08:23 PM
AMD K6/2 faster than a 933MHz Pentium II? Donald McTrevor alt.comp.hardware 63 08-17-2005 04:47 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45