原帖由 qcmadness 於 2017-7-13 01:27 發表
I don't think so.
The database / transaction server is still in Xeon territories due to latency issues.
原帖由 Sandbo 於 2017-7-13 01:32 發表
If you read the top comments, you will see (as in the article they also mentioned),
they chose "A small database that can be mostly cached in the L3-cache", which is largely not true for realistic sc ...
原帖由 qcmadness 於 2017-7-13 01:33 發表
But even the database is stored in memory, the latency issues still remain.
You could think of some bias but the latency difference is still too large to ignore.
So the dual socket AMD system should theoretically get 307 GB per second (2.4 GT/s* 8 bytes per channel x 8 channels x 2 sockets). The Intel system has access to 256 GB per second (2.66 GT/s* 8 bytes per channel x 6 channels x 2 sockets).
原帖由 Sandbo 於 2017-7-13 01:41 發表
Not sure, but if as comments mentioned (I don't know much about database) a real-life model requires data stored mostly in RAM,
EPYC has a much better bandwidth comparing to Intel's.
So it is inte ...
原帖由 tat0801 於 2017-7-14 19:47 發表
AMD 呢次玩膠水8春反擊到Intel 無曬法子咁既?
又睇下威到幾時?
當年AMD 都係係K8 對P4 2.8e 果期叫好左一陣
C2D 一出就死直
果度三年唔夠
原帖由 tat0801 於 14-7-2017 19:47 發表
AMD 呢次玩膠水8春反擊到Intel 無曬法子咁既?
又睇下威到幾時?
當年AMD 都係係K8 對P4 2.8e 果期叫好左一陣
C2D 一出就死直
果度三年唔夠
歡迎光臨 HKSpot (https://bbs.hk-spot.com/) | Powered by Discuz! 6.0 Lite |