We do have one application that support charges per Core for Maintenance. So you might check on that when making your decision. Other than that I would agree Get the Quad Core CPU's whenever possible. I have a few of them already and you will really like them.
-----Original Message----- From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:41 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Server CPU Question >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/> ~
