CPU speed 1.9 and 2.6

Sometimes I'm kinda struggling to prove that a 4 way 1.9GHz procs would
suffice and I dont have to go to management and make them decomission these
servers and instead buy a 2.6 or greater speed CPU.
Has anyone benchmarked a 1.9 and 2.6Ghz procs. I am currently not pressured
on CPU, so if I move my processing say from a 2.6 proc to a 1.9 proc speed
server, will my performance degrade ?
ThanksIt's your disk speed that measures performance! CPU is always your last
bottleneck in a SQL Server. The first two are RAM and Disk. Why does
everybody go out and buy shiny new processors to make their SQL Server
faster?
After you spend all your money, you discover there is no money left for a
screaming fast disk subsystem.
Ask your stump-stupid management to buy a screaming fast disk subsystem with
many raid controllers. (remember PCI cards maxes at 133MB/sec)
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23dyxV9l8FHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Sometimes I'm kinda struggling to prove that a 4 way 1.9GHz procs would
> suffice and I dont have to go to management and make them decomission
> these servers and instead buy a 2.6 or greater speed CPU.
> Has anyone benchmarked a 1.9 and 2.6Ghz procs. I am currently not
> pressured on CPU, so if I move my processing say from a 2.6 proc to a 1.9
> proc speed server, will my performance degrade ?
> Thanks
>|||LOL! LOL!
Bud, you nailed the point!
this is what I wanted to post to newsgroups and somehow got it sent to
email.
Some people just don't get it. I/O, RAM, CPU! That is the order you spend
your money, unless one can prove it otherwise.
Farmer.
-- Original Message --
From: "Hotmail" <>
To: "Hassan" <>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: CPU speed 1.9 and 2.6

> Hi Hassan,
> there one good article that came out lately that gives good explanation of
> how CPU speed, their level 2 and level 3 caches influence SQL performance.
> It's called "Bare-Metal Tuning"
> at
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/SQLServ...92.ht
ml
> It is for subscribers, therefore I can't post its contents here. You may
> want to subscribe to this magazine, it's very good.
> You don't provide enough info to make much conclusions about CPUs that you
> have, like their models, types, cache sizes and their quantities
> (hypothetical for your new server). The rest of the server construction is
> also important, like bus speeds, RAID types, raid controllers and on and
> on. All being equal, you will see lower performance but that is only if
> your SQL is CPU bound, i.e. the bottleneck is CPU. I would doubt that is
> the case as your I/O subsystem is usually is the first bottleneck, then
> memory then CPU. You have to monitor your system to know these factors.
> I can build a server with 4 x 1.9 Ghz cpus that will leave stock 2.6 Ghz
> server eating dust behind, (with smart RAID and RAID cache, several
> independent raid controllers and lots of main memory). It all depends a
> lot on what else is in the server.
> I would suggest you don't waste your company money; they can be spent with
> better ROI and use this 4 way server until you have performance statistics
> to prove you need more powerful CPUs and better server. I find that people
> tend to overbuy on unfounded theoretical performance fears just like many
> people overbuy insurance policies with 0 deductibles.
>
> Thanks
> Farmer.
"Bud Y. Zer" <bud@.Gibralter.Bra> wrote in message
news:ecwog%23R9FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> It's your disk speed that measures performance! CPU is always your last
> bottleneck in a SQL Server. The first two are RAM and Disk. Why does
> everybody go out and buy shiny new processors to make their SQL Server
> faster?
> After you spend all your money, you discover there is no money left for a
> screaming fast disk subsystem.
> Ask your stump-stupid management to buy a screaming fast disk subsystem
> with many raid controllers. (remember PCI cards maxes at 133MB/sec)
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23dyxV9l8FHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||So thats nice to know.. So what does one need to ask ? So if i say give me
faster IO, what does that mean ? What do we get as standards and what should
we be getting ?
Please let me know so I know exactly what to ask for
"Farmer" <someone@.somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:%238KUl0t9FHA.4048@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> LOL! LOL!
> Bud, you nailed the point!
> this is what I wanted to post to newsgroups and somehow got it sent to
> email.
> Some people just don't get it. I/O, RAM, CPU! That is the order you spend
> your money, unless one can prove it otherwise.
> Farmer.
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Hotmail" <>
> To: "Hassan" <>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: CPU speed 1.9 and 2.6
>
>
>
> "Bud Y. Zer" <bud@.Gibralter.Bra> wrote in message
> news:ecwog%23R9FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>|||You can start here.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...in/sqlops6.mspx
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2aIw3Q%23FHA.3036@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> So thats nice to know.. So what does one need to ask ? So if i say give me
> faster IO, what does that mean ? What do we get as standards and what
> should we be getting ?
> Please let me know so I know exactly what to ask for
> "Farmer" <someone@.somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:%238KUl0t9FHA.4048@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>