You bet, I always go for the quads (dual if possible) with the largest amount of on board cache....those servers just purr...
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Carl Houseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > From a Microsoft licensing standpoint, extra cores are free. Extra CPUs > are not always free. So quad-core is better than 2 x dual-core in that > regard. > > > > From a performance standpoint the difference if any between 2 x 2-core vs. > 1 x 4-core is not likely to be noticeable. It seems possible that with very > esoteric hardware the memory bandwidth might be greater for 2 x 2-core > compared to 1 x 4-core, but in commodity servers I doubt there's a > difference. Counterpoints welcome. > > > > Carl > > > > *From:* Joe Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:14 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Server CPU Question > > > > I'm currently working on our budget for next year. I need to make > recommendations on some replacement servers for our in house > Oracle/ColdFusion application. My question is, will I get more horsepower > from the server by using dual DualCore Xeons (such as the X5260) or a single > QuadCore (E5440) Xeon? The way I see it, cores are cores, and the more > cores I can get on a CPU the better off I am. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > Thanks in advance, > -Joe > > -- > Joe Fox > Systems/Network Administrator > > Mobile# (716) 846-9308 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/josephfoxjr > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
