I think this helps underscore my point. Sometimes you get performance, sometimes you don't. I used to work for a major OEM that sold Intel systems. One of the biggest problems was that SQL Server, for instance, ran…
The goal was not to dismiss SMT - merely to explain why we are not using it. We have a different strategy than the competition. They are choosing SMT, we are heading down the path of more physical cores. At the end of…
I will get that fixed. Thanks.
No, it has more to do with the inconsistency of SMT in an x86 environment. If we were always getting consistent performance gains and expected stability it would be a consideration. That might change in the future, but…
We have looked into that, but that is not our strategy. If we knew that SMT (in an x86 architecture) could lead to an "always better performance" environment, it might be more applealing. But the fact that the…
no, that was actually not a pun.
I think this helps underscore my point. Sometimes you get performance, sometimes you don't. I used to work for a major OEM that sold Intel systems. One of the biggest problems was that SQL Server, for instance, ran…
The goal was not to dismiss SMT - merely to explain why we are not using it. We have a different strategy than the competition. They are choosing SMT, we are heading down the path of more physical cores. At the end of…
I will get that fixed. Thanks.
No, it has more to do with the inconsistency of SMT in an x86 environment. If we were always getting consistent performance gains and expected stability it would be a consideration. That might change in the future, but…
We have looked into that, but that is not our strategy. If we knew that SMT (in an x86 architecture) could lead to an "always better performance" environment, it might be more applealing. But the fact that the…
no, that was actually not a pun.