Figure 1: Speedup from Successive Processor Generations

This workload is described as “AsiaInfo ADB Database OCS k-tpmC”, while the AsiaInfo ADB is described as “a scalable OLTP database that targets high performance and mission critical businesses such as online charge service (OCS) in the telecom industry”, that runs on Linux.

The reason I have performance in quotes above is because what they are really measuring is closer to what I would call capacity or scalability. Their topline result is “Thousands of Transactions per Minute” as measured with these different hardware and storage configurations.

The key point to keep in mind with these types of benchmarks is whether they are actually comparing relatively comparable systems or not. In this case, the systems are quite similar, except for the core counts of the successive processor models (and the DD3 vs. DDR4 memory support). Here are the system components, as listed in the footnotes of the document:

Baseline: Four-sockets, 15-core Intel Xeon E7-4890 v2, 256GB DDR3/1333 DIMM, Intel DC S3700 SATA for OS, (2) 2TB Intel DC P3700 PCIe NVMe for storage, 10GbE Intel X540-AT2 NIC

Next Generation: Four-sockets, 18-core Intel Xeon E7-8890 v3, 256GB DDR4/1600 LVDIMM, Intel DC S3700 SATA for OS, (2) 2TB Intel DC P3700 PCIe NVMe for storage, 10GbE Intel X540-AT2 NIC

New: Four-sockets, 24-core Intel Xeon E7-8890 v4, 256GB DDR4/1600 LVDIMM, Intel DC S3700 SATA for OS, (2) 2TB Intel DC P3700 PCIe NVMe for storage, 10GbE Intel X540-AT2 NIC

The baseline system has a total of 60 physical cores, running at 2.8GHz, using the older Ivy Bridge-EX microarchitecture. The next generation system has a total of 72 physical cores, running at 2.5GHz, using the slightly newer Haswell-EX microarchitecture. Finally, the new system has a total of 96 physical cores, running at 2.2GHz, using the current Broadwell-EX microarchitecture. These differences in core counts, base clock speeds, and microarchitecture make it a little harder to fully understand their benchmark results in a realistic manner.

Table 1 shows some relevant metrics for these three system configurations. The older generation processors have fewer cores, but run at a higher base clock speed. The newer generation processors would be faster than the older generation processors at the same clock speed, but the base clock speed is lower as the core counts have increased with each successive generation flagship processor. The improvements in IPC and single-threaded performance are obscured by lower base clock speeds as the core counts increase, which makes the final score increase less impressive.

Table 1: Analysis of ADB Benchmark Results

Table 2 shows some metrics from an analysis of some actual and estimated TPC-E benchmark results for those same three system configurations, plus an additional processor choice that I added. The results are pretty similar, which supports the idea that both of these benchmarks are CPU-limited. From a SQL Server 2016 perspective, you are going to be better off from a performance/license cost perspective if you purposely choose a lower core count “frequency-optimized” processor (at the cost of less total system capacity per host).

This is somewhat harder to do with the Intel Xeon E7 v4 family, because of your limited SKU choices. A good processor choice for many workloads would be the 10-core Intel Xeon E7-8891 v4 processor, which has a base clock speed of 2.8GHz and a 60MB L3 cache that is shared by only 10 cores.

If you could spread your workload across two database servers, you would be much better off with two, four-socket servers with the 10-core Xeon E7-8891 v4 rather than one four-socket server with the 24-core Xeon E7-8890 v4. You would have more total system processor capacity, roughly 27% better single-threaded CPU performance, twice the total system memory capacity, and twice the total number of PCIe 3.0 expansion slots. You would also only need 80 SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition core licenses rather than 96 core licenses, which would save you about $114K in license costs. That license savings would probably pay for both database servers, depending on their exact configuration.

Table 2: Analysis of Estimated TPC-E Benchmark Results

The Intel document also discusses the “performance” increases seen from moving from Intel DC S3700 SATA drives to Intel DC P3700 PCIe NVMe drives. This is going to be primarily influenced by the advantages of being connected directly to the PCIe bus and the lower latency and overhead of the NVMe protocol compared to the older AHCI protocol.

Finally, they talk about the “performance” increases they measured from enabling the Intel Transactional Synchronization Extensions (TSX) instruction set and the Intel AVX 2.0 instruction set on current generation Intel E7-8800 v4 series processors.

SQL Server 2016 already has hardware support for older SSE/AVX instructions as discussed here and here. I really hope that Microsoft decides to add even more support for newer instruction sets (such as TSX) in SQL Server vNext.

The post Intel Xeon E7 Processor Generational Performance Comparison appeared first on Glenn Berry.

To help you with that effort, here is an example hardware analysis comparing an existing legacy four-socket server (a Dell PowerEdge R815) with four AMD Opteron 6168 processors to a new four-socket server (a Dell PowerEdge R920) with newer 22nm Intel Xeon E7 v2 Ivy Bridge-EX processors.

For a Dell PowerEdge R920, I would be looking at one of these three processors:

1. Xeon E7-8857 v2   (12 cores, 3.0 GHz base clock speed)

2. Xeon E7-8891 v2   (10 cores, 3.2 GHz base clock speed)

3. Xeon E7-8893 v2   (6 cores, 3.4 GHz base clock speed)

These three candidate processors all have higher base clock speeds and lower physical core counts than some other more common choices, such as the fifteen-core Xeon E7-4890 v2.

The closest equivalent AMD-based system I could find in the TPC-E benchmark results (to the legacy system) was an HP ProLiant BL685c G7 Blade Server with four, 2.2GHz AMD Opteron 6174 processors and 512GB of RAM, with an actual raw TPC-E score of 1464.12. The raw TPC-E score is a good way of measuring the overall CPU capacity of a system.

Dividing this score by the number of physical cores in the system gives us a score/core of 30.5, which is a good measure of single-threaded processor performance. Since the legacy system has slower 1.9GHz AMD Opteron 6168 processors (from the same generation and family), we simply need to adjust for the clock speed difference. Taking 1.9GHz divided by 2.2 GHz is 0.8636. Taking the actual 1464.12 score times 0.8636 gives us an estimated TPC-E score of 1264.46 for the legacy system. Dividing that by 48 physical cores gives an estimated score/core of 26.34 for the legacy system.

There is an actual TPC-E result for a four-socket IBM System x3850 X6 with four, 15-core 2.8GHz Intel Xeon E7-4890 v2 processors and 2TB of RAM, with a raw TPC-E score of 5576.27. Dividing this actual score by 60 physical cores gives us an actual score/core of 92.94.

We can adjust this actual result for the three candidate processors listed above to take into account the difference in core counts and base clock speeds to get estimated TPC-E scores for a four-socket system with each of those processors since they are from the same generation and family.

1. Xeon E7-8857 v2               5576.27 original score, times .80 (core count difference), times 1.0714 (clock speed difference), is 4779.53 divided by 48 total physical cores is 99.57 score/core

2. Xeon E7-8891 v2               5576.27 original score, times .66 (core count difference), times 1.1428 (clock speed difference), is 4233.73 divided by 40 total physical cores is 105.84 score/core

3. Xeon E7-8893 v2               5576.27 original score, times .40 (core count difference), times 1.2142 (clock speed difference), is 2708.28 divided by 24 total physical cores is 112.84 score/core

Comparing the legacy system to the actual new four-socket TPC-E result and my estimates for the other three processors, gives us this summary:

Processor                        TPC-E Score        Score/Core         Total Physical Cores     SQL 2014 License Cost (EE)

Opteron 6168                    1264.46                 26.34                     48                             $329,952.00     ($274,464.00 with AMD Core Factor discount)

Opteron 6174                    1464.12                 30.50                     48                             $329,952.00     ($274,464.00 with AMD Core Factor discount)                        

Xeon E7-4890 v2               5576.27                 92.94                     60                             $395,942.00

Xeon E7-8857 v2               4779.53                 99.57                     48                             $329,952.00       

Xeon E7-8891 v2               4233.73                 105.84                   40                             $274,960.00

Xeon E7-8893 v2               2708.28                 112.84                   24                             $164,976.00

This means that we could choose from having from roughly four times better single-threaded processor performance using the Xeon E7-8893 v2 processor or from having roughly four times more processor capacity using the Xeon E7-8857 v2 processor in a new system compared to the legacy system, depending on which processor we choose. The difference in SQL Server 2014 Enterprise Edition license costs between the different processor choices is quite dramatic. For example, going from the twelve-core processor to the faster ten-core processor lowers your SQL Server license costs by about as much as the actual server would cost.

The post SQL Server 2014 Hardware Analysis Case Study appeared first on Glenn Berry.

Next, you need to decide on the server socket count, which means choosing a single-socket, dual-socket, quad-socket, or eight-socket server (at least in the commodity server market). After you choose the socket count, you need to decide exactly which of the available processors you want to use in that model server. Looking at the choices for several current model servers from the major system vendors, you will discover that you will have to pick from around 15-20 different specific processors. All of this can be a little overwhelming to consider, but I urge you to do some research, and to choose carefully. Letting someone else pick your processors, who may not be familiar with SQL Server 2012/2014 licensing and the demands of different database workload types, could be a lasting, costly mistake.

With the core-based licensing in SQL Server 2012/2014 Enterprise Edition, you need to pay closer attention to your physical core counts, and think about whether you are more concerned with extra scalability (from having more physical cores), or whether you want the absolute best OLTP query performance (from having a processor with fewer cores but a higher base clock speed from the same processor generation). Unlike in the good old days of SQL Server 2008 R2 and older, having more physical cores will cost you more for your SQL Server 2012/2014 Enterprise Edition licensing costs. You really need to think about what you are trying to accomplish with your database hardware. For example, if you can partition your workload between multiple servers, then you could see much better OLTP performance from using two dual-socket servers instead of one quad-socket server.

So, here are the Intel processors that I recommend in mid-April 2014 for OLTP workloads, with their high-level specifications and some commentary.

One-Socket Server (High Capacity)

Intel Xeon E5-2470 v2 (22nm Ivy Bridge-EN)

• 2.4 GHz, 25MB L3 cache, 8 GT/s Intel QPI 1.1
• 10 cores, Turbo Boost 2.0 (3.2 GHz), hyper-threading
• Three memory channels, six memory slots per processor, 96GB RAM with 16GB DIMMs

One-Socket Server (High Performance)

Intel Xeon E3-1280 v3 (22nm Haswell)

• 3.6 GHz, 8MB L3 cache, 5 GT/s Intel QPI 1.1
• 4 cores, Turbo Boost 2.0 (4.0 GHz), hyper-threading
• Two memory channels, four memory slots per processor, 32GB RAM with 8GB DIMMs

At least one Tier One vendor (Dell) is offering a single-socket server with the new Ivy Bridge-EN processor family. This is the entry level, two-socket capable Ivy Bridge processor that has lower clock speeds and less memory bandwidth than the Ivy Bridge-EP processor family, so it is NOT a good choice for a two-socket server. Despite this, it does give you the ability to have ten physical cores and 96GB of RAM in a single-socket server. You would see much better single-threaded OLTP performance from a new 3rd generation E3-1280 v3 Haswell processor, but you would be limited to four physical cores and 32GB of RAM. Again, if you can partition your workload, two single-socket Xeon E3-1280 v3 based servers would give you much better OLTP performance than one Xeon E5-2470 v2 based server with a lower SQL Server 2012/2014 Enterprise Edition licensing cost.

Two-Socket Server (High Capacity)

Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 (22nm Ivy Bridge-EP)

• 2.7 GHz, 30MB L3 cache, 8 GT/s Intel QPI 1.1
• 12 cores, Turbo Boost 2.0 (3.5 GHz), hyper-threading
• Four memory channels, twelve memory slots per processor, 384GB RAM with 16GB DIMMs

Two-Socket Server (High Performance)

Intel Xeon E5-2643 v2 (22nm Ivy Bridge-EP)

• 3.5 GHz, 25MB L3 cache, 8 GT/s Intel QPI 1.1
• 6 cores, Turbo Boost 2.0 (3.8 GHz), hyper-threading
• Four memory channels, twelve memory slots per processor, 384GB RAM with 16GB DIMMs

Choosing the top of the line, 12-core Xeon E5-2697 v2 would cost twice as much for the SQL Server license costs as the 6 core Xeon E5-2643 v2. Once again, if you can partition your workload, two dual-socket Xeon E5-2643 v2 based servers would give you better overall OLTP performance than one Xeon E5-2697 v2 based server for the same SQL Server 2012/2014 Enterprise Edition licensing cost. You would have more total memory between the two servers, and more potential I/O capacity, at the cost of buying two servers instead of one server.  In some situations, this strategy might not make sense, especially with the added management and maintenance overhead of two servers instead of one.

Four-Socket Server (High Capacity)

Intel Xeon E7-4890 v2 (22nm Ivy Bridge-EX)

• 2.8 GHz, 37.5MB L3 cache, 8 GT/s Intel QPI 1.1
• 15 cores, Turbo Boost 2.0 (3.4 GHz), hyper-threading
• Four memory channels, twenty-four memory slots per processor, 1536GB RAM with 16GB DIMMs

Four-Socket Server (High Performance)

Intel Xeon E7-8893 v2 (22nm Ivy Bridge-EX)

• 3.4 GHz, 37.5MB L3 cache, 8 GT/s Intel QPI 1.1
• 6 cores, Turbo Boost 2.0 (3.7 GHz), hyper-threading
• Four memory channels, twenty-four memory slots per processor, 1536GB RAM with 16GB DIMMs

The brand new Xeon E7-8893 v2 will give you significantly better single-threaded OLTP query performance in a four-socket server than the E7-4890 v2, at the cost of less total capacity because of the lower physical core count. The E7-8893 v2 is a “frequency-optimized” model that is actually meant for eight-socket servers, but is available in several new four-socket server models from the major server vendors.

It would save you enough on SQL Server 2012/2014 Enterprise Edition license costs (about $250K) to buy the server itself and still have lots of money left over. I even think it is a better choice in many situations than a two-socket server with the 12-core, Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2, since you will have much higher single-threaded performance and much higher memory capacity. The downside is a higher hardware cost, since you will be buying four, quite expensive processors.

Eight-Socket Server (High Capacity)

Intel Xeon E7-8890 v2 (22nm Ivy Bridge-EX)

• 2.8 GHz, 37.5MB L3 cache, 8 GT/s Intel QPI 1.1
• 15 cores, Turbo Boost 2.0 (3.4 GHz), hyper-threading
• Four memory channels, twenty-four memory slots per processor, 3072GB RAM with 16GB DIMMs (eight sockets)

Eight-Socket Server (High Performance)

Intel Xeon E7-8891 v2 (22nm Ivy Bridge-EX)

• 3.2 GHz, 37.5MB L3 cache, 8 GT/s Intel QPI 1.1
• 10 cores, Turbo Boost 2.0 (3.7 GHz), hyper-threading
• Four memory channels, twenty-four memory slots per processor, 3072GB RAM with 16GB DIMMs (eight sockets)

You can choose a lower core count, frequency-optimized model, that has a higher clock speed for better single-threaded performance. The lower core count will also save you a LOT of money on SQL Server 2012/2014 licensing costs, although you will give up that extra load capacity with few total processor cores available.

I always like to hear what you think about my posts, so be sure to let me know!

The post Recommended Intel Processors For SQL Server 2014 OLTP Workloads appeared first on Glenn Berry.

These are both incredible scores for a four-socket system, both for the actual raw score and from a score per physical core perspective. Both of these tested systems have actual TPC-E scores that rival an eight-socket system with the previous generation 32nm Intel Xeon E7-4870 Westmere-EX processor, while their single-threaded performance (as measured by the TPC-E score divided by the number of physical cores) is also relatively close to what we see in the latest 22nm Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 Ivy Bridge-EP processors. This gives you the possibility of eight-socket capacity, with close to modern two-socket single-threaded performance in a four-socket server.

Table 1: Recent IBM TPC-E Benchmark scores

As you can see from Table 1, the Intel Xeon E7-4890 v2 processor is a huge improvement over the previous Intel Xeon E7-4870 processor, with much higher overall capacity and higher single-threaded performance. You also get much higher memory capacity and PCI-E 3.0 support with the new processor.

On the negative side, your SQL Server 2012/2014 core license costs will be 50% higher if you go with the high-end 15-core E7-4890 v2 processor. One alternative would be to use the 12-core, Xeon E7-4860 v2 processor or even the ten-core, Xeon E7-4830 v2 processor to minimize your SQL Server 2012/2014 license costs. One slight problem with that strategy is that the base and turbo clock speeds are lower in the lower core-count processors in the Xeon E7-48xx v2 product family, since they don’t have lower core count, “frequency-optimized” models like the Xeon E5-26xx v2 product family does.

Four-socket systems with these new processors are going to be much faster and have much more total load capacity than previous four-socket systems with the older Westmere-Ex processor.

The post Two New TPC-E Benchmark Results for Intel Xeon Ivy Bridge-EX Processors appeared first on Glenn Berry.

These E7 processors also use much lower base and turbo clock speeds than current Xeon E5 v2 processors, which also hurts their single-threaded processor performance. They do have higher overall concurrent load capacity due to higher total memory capacity and more total processor cores, but the individual processor cores in most four-socket servers have been much slower than what you find in a modern two-socket server. Simply put, bigger servers are not faster servers. It is like comparing an eighteen wheeler truck to a Tesla Model S.

Now, that old assessment is going to change somewhat, with the release of the 22nm Intel Xeon E7 Processor v2 Family (Ivy Bridge-EX), and new model servers from the major server vendors that have even higher memory capacity, PCI-E 3.0 support, and 12Gbps SAS/SATA support, along with much faster RAID controllers. These processors are a substantial improvement over the previous generation 32nm Intel Xeon E7 processors (Westmere-EX) that have been available since early 2011.

It will still be possible to configure a new two-socket server, such as a Dell PowerEdge R720, with an appropriate 22nm Intel Xeon E5-2600 Processor v2 Family (Ivy Bridge-EP) processor that will have better single-threaded performance than a new four-socket server such as a Dell PowerEdge R920, but the gap will not be nearly as large as it once was.

The actual good news here for a database professional is the fact that you will be able to have a four-socket server that has as much load capacity as a previous generation, eight-socket server, that also performs nearly as well as a current two-socket server, while paying 25% less for your SQL Server 2012/2014 license costs (compared to a previous generation eight-socket server). This is a pretty big gift from Intel!

A more pessimistic view is that your SQL Server 2012/2014 license costs could rise by 50% as you move from an existing server equipped with four, ten-core Xeon E7-4870 processors (with a total of forty physical cores) to a new server with four, fifteen-core Xeon E7-4890 v2 processors (with a total of of sixty physical cores). For reasons known only to Intel, the lower core count SKUs in the Xeon E7-48xx v2 product family are not “frequency optimized”, meaning they do not have higher clock speeds than the high-end, E7-4890 v2 processor. The base and turbo clock speeds of the best lower core-count SKUs in the E7- 48xx v2 family actually drop off pretty quickly as the core counts go down. The shared-L3 cache sizes also drop off very quickly, as does the processor price, as you can see in Table 1.

Table 1: Selected Intel E7-48xx v2 Processors

With the Xeon E4-48xx v2 product family, you are going to want to choose either the E7-4890 v2 or the E7-4860 v2 model processors in most situations, since the lower core count processors are giving up a substantial amount of performance due to their lower clock speeds and smaller L3 cache sizes. If you really want to reduce your core counts to reduce your SQL Server 2012/2014 license costs, you would be better off with the Intel Xeon E5-26xx v2 product family processors that are used in two socket servers. Another alternative is the upcoming Intel Xeon E5-46xx v2 product family processors that are used in four-socket servers.

Either of those choices would be better than one of the lower core count processors in the E7-48xx v2 product family, at least from a pure processor performance perspective.

Intel also has refreshed the E7-88xx v2 product family that is meant for eight-socket and larger servers. For some reason (probably for HPC use), Intel does have “frequency-optimized”, lower core-count models in this product family, as you can see in Table 2.

Table 2: Selected Intel E7-88xx v2 Processors

I could see some scenarios where you might want to get an eight-socket server with the six-core E7-8893 v2, so that you could have the same physical core count, while having double the memory capacity and much better single-threaded processor performance than a four-socket server with the twelve-core E7-4860 v2. The hardware cost would be significantly higher, since you would be buying eight processors for $6,841.00 each instead of four processors at $3,838.00 each, but for many organizations, that would not be a major issue.

Some server vendors may offer the Xeon E7-88xx v2 processors in their four-socket server models, since they are pin-compatible, which would give us a lot more flexibility as far as processor selection goes. I really wish Intel had “frequency-optimized” models in their Xeon E7-48xx v2 product family, to make this even easier.

The post Bigger Database Servers Get Faster appeared first on Glenn Berry.

In most cases you would not actually want to do a processor upgrade on an existing server for economic reasons, but you could if you wanted to. Having socket and chipset compatibility just means that the server vendors will be able to offer the new processor as soon as they get a supply of them from Intel.

The E5-2600 v2 series is aimed at two-socket servers, and will have at least 18 different “Ivy Bridge-EP” SKUs, ranging from the entry-level E5-2603 v2 up to the twelve-core E5-2697 v2. The 22nm processors have up to 12 physical cores, which allows them to have 24 logical cores with hyper-threading enabled.  The second series, the E5-1600 v2, works only in single-socket systems, and is going to initially have three models, the E5-1620 v2, E5-1650 v2, and E5-1660 v2. Both families will work with the Intel C600 series chipsets, and both use Socket 2011.

The second generation 22nm Intel Xeon E7 family, (which includes the Xeon E7-2800 v2, E7-4800, and E7-8800 v2) is aimed at larger, multi-processor servers, and it will be delayed until at least Q1 2014. Previous reports indicated these Ivy Bridge-EX processors would be available in Q4 2013. These processors will have triple the memory capacity of the current 32nm Westmere-EX processors, and they will require new server models from the server vendors. They will also finally have PCI-E 3.0 support, so overall they will be a huge upgrade from the current Westmere-EX.

Also in Q1 2014, Intel is going to release the 22nm Xeon E5-4600 v2 and E5-2400 v2 processors. The E5-4600 v2 will work in four-socket servers, and they use Socket 2011. The E5-2400 v2 (Ivy Bridge-EN) are for two-socket servers, have up to 10 cores, and will use Socket 1356. These Ivy Bridge-EN processors will NOT a good choice for SQL Server 2012 and SQL Server 2014 OLTP workloads compared to higher performance Ivy Bridge-EP processors.

I really hate to see Intel slip their release schedule like this. I think a big part of why this happened is due to a lack of viable competition from AMD. After all, why should Intel rush to push out new technology when they are absolutely dominant from a performance perspective? They can continue to sell the current processors for a little longer with no real consequences.

Given the apparent delay for the Ivy Bridge-EX, a twelve-core Ivy Bridge-EP processor will be the hot ticket for a lot of people who are looking at new database servers over the next six to nine months. A new two-socket Ivy Bridge-EP system with Windows Server 2012 R2 and SQL Server 2014 will be the way to go in the near future.

The post Updates on Intel Xeon Ivy Bridge Server Processor Launch Schedules appeared first on Glenn Berry.

Historically, two-socket database servers simply did not have enough processor capacity, memory capacity, or I/O capacity to handle many more demanding database workloads. Back in 2007, a two-socket server would typically have been limited to about eight processor cores, 32GB of RAM, and two or three PCI-E 1.0 or 2.0 expansion slots, which made it much more challenging to run a large database workload on a two-socket server in the past.

Processors have gotten far more powerful in the last few years, and memory density has gone up dramatically. Modern two-socket servers have 24 memory slots, which means that you can have 384GB of RAM with affordable 16GB DDR3 DIMMs or 768GB of RAM with more expensive 32GB DDR3 DIMMs. The price/GB of 32GB memory modules is still about $39/GB compared to about $13/GB for 16GB memory modules, but the prices for the larger modules has fallen 25% in the last two months.

It is also possible to get much more I/O capacity connected to a two-socket server than it was a few years ago. The latest generation, two-socket servers that use the Intel Xeon E5-2600 series processor can have six or seven PCI-E 3.0 expansion slots, that each have twice the bandwidth of the older PCI-E 2.0 standard.

Because of how the way that the Intel Tick-Tock processor release strategy works, two-socket servers get the latest processor microarchitectures and manufacturing process technology releases significantly sooner than when these same advances show up in the four-socket space. Right now, two-socket servers have the 32nm Sandy Bridge-EP, while four-socket servers are still using the older 32nm Westmere-EX that has higher core counts but lower single-threaded processor performance.

This performance gap will be even wider in Q3 of 2013, when the upcoming 22nm 12-core Ivy Bridge-EP is released. Four-socket servers will finally get caught up somewhat in Q4 of 2013, when the 22nm 15-core Ivy Bridge-EX is released but Ivy Bridge-EX  will still have higher core counts and lower single-threaded processor performance than Ivy Bridge-EP. The gap will open up again, probably in early 2015, when Haswell-EP is released.

The final reason to think about this issue is the cost of SQL Server 2012 core licenses. If you can run your workload on a two-socket server instead of a four-socket server, you can save over 50% on your SQL Server core-based license costs, which can be a very substantial savings! Even with SQL Server 2012 Standard Edition licenses, the license cost savings would pay for a very capable two-socket database server (exclusive of the I/O subsystem).

The post A SQL Server Hardware Tidbit a Day – Day 24 appeared first on Glenn Berry.