DUAL at 800mhz FSB vs QUAD at 400Mhz FSB | SQL Server Performance Forums

SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

DUAL at 800mhz FSB vs QUAD at 400Mhz FSB

Which would be better for:
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise on Win 2003 Enterprise
60 to 80 gig DB for DSS (mostly used for queries/aggregation)
Data on RAID 10 Logs on Raid1
16 Gig RAM
All of the above being equal, which would be better?
– QUAD XEON 2.2ghz/2mb cache at 400mhz FSB
– DUAL XEON 3.6ghz/1mb cache at 800mhz FSB (EMT64)
Hi ya, I think that it will still depend on the total load put on the server, in terms of number of concurrent queries, size of the tables within the db, complexity of queries, etc. Loads of concurrent queries are likely to benefit from more processors, where as a single query might be better off with a faster processor… Twan
Thanks, If both were dual, do you think the 800mhz FSB would make a big difference vs 400 mhz FSB?
i haven’t seen SQL Server use the memory bandwidth beyond that available at 400MHz FSB,
the 3.6GHz CPU will be faster for non-parallel ops, like inserts,
i am inclined also to think that a parallel query on 2×3.6GHz may be faster or equal to 4×2.2GHz (of course, parallel query with HT is a problem in many cases)
the 4×2.2 may be better on OLTP