5 ms·
If 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 cos
by dvdkon 6y ago
If 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y agoBecause to non-technical businesses hiring competent database architects is a lot more expensive than buying an Oracle support contract.
- rblatz 6y 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 6y 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.