On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote: > Henrik K wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: > >> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores > >> that > >> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, > >> or > >> HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a > >> good many workloads unless they were tightly constructed to work on > >> the same > >> data in cache. Else, those HT's did just enough extra work to block > >> cache contents more than anything else. > > > > I really doubt there's HT involved in a recent looking 8 core 16GB > > machine.. > > Why not? I have a couple of brandnew Intel Core i7 (Nehalem) systems > with 8Gb RAM - they have 1 physical CPU with 4 cores and HT = > 8 "cores". And they've got room for more RAM :-)
Ah a comeback.. I guess it's atleast better than the P4 stuff? That reminds me, gotta test how SA runs on a Sun T5240 with 16 core "128 cores"..
