4 ms·
That’s an interesting take. I feel the chip space is driven by marketing a bit too much. At the data center level I don’t believe the performance difference is
by throwastrike 5y ago
That’s an interesting take. I feel the chip space is driven by marketing a bit too much. At the data center level I don’t believe the performance difference is as dramatic in practical terms. For the most part, you’re not missing out that much by going Intel unless you are working on something time critical.
- dvdkon 5y agoIf we're talking AMD vs Intel, then the biggest difference I see is cost (when the CPUs are in stock, anyway). Intel's performance is fine, but the CPUs can cost multiple times that of the competition. With Xeon, a small municipality would never be able to say "You know what? Just go with the 32-core CPU, it's not that much more."
- chasil 5y agoI would prefer a 2-core CPU, when Oracle Enterprise Databases run around $24k/core after discount, and SQL Server Enterprise runs around $15k/core. From single-core performance and low core count, Intel appears to be the better choice.
- smegger001 5y agonot a DB guy so excuse my ignorance but at that price per core wouldn't it be more cost effective to hire a few more admins and buy more cores and use something like postgress or MariaDB?
- ajross 5y agoBecause to non-technical businesses hiring competent database architects is a lot more expensive than buying an Oracle support contract.
- rblatz 5y agoThese are likely systems originally built when the database was the application. So everything in stored procedures and shared across hundreds of individual jobs/apps/reports.
- chasil 5y agoMy Oracle Enterprise databases were installed in the late 90s, and lots of systems that I support have grown around them. I've raised the question of the Enterprise DB version of Postgres (because of the PL/SQL emulation, which would certainly be needed). Even this change would be a large engineering effort.