CPU comparison

[#1]

so what's better, clock speed or cpu model

Pentium Dual-Core E5800 @ 3.2GHz (https://ark.intel.com/products/42802/Intel-Pentium-Processor-E5800-2M-Cache-3_20-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)
or
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33Mhz (http://ark.intel.com/products/30783/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E6550-4M-Cache-2_33-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB)

both running windows 7 64 bit wiht 4GM RAM.
obviously the Core 2 Duo is newer, but has a slower clock speed.
does the newer technology trump the drop in clock speed?

[#2]

Ideally it's all down to instructions per second, the higher the GHz the more instructions the CPU can execute. However, you also need to take in to consideration the work being done on the CPU and where the data for it lives. If its all local and in one of the caches (L1, L2) then that's good, but if it's been paged out during a context switch then that's not good.

[#3]

majority of the tasks will be via SQL Management Studio installed locally running queries etc on a local SQL server.
other than that, just the usual work environment stuff.

[#4]

@chenks76

A good site to check CPU speeds relative to one another is https://www.cpubenchmark.net/

[#5]

i've often found those cpu benchmark ratings are mostly meaningless, as they don't really take into account real life useage.

however..

[#6]

@chenks76 - Well for one if you’re running a local install of SQL server then ideally you’d want a quad core variant of these CPUs or similar, to give you some semblance of performance. SQL Server is greedy for resources and CPU hungry and ideally should be run on dedicated hardware, but I appreciate that’s not an option for everyone.

Having said that if your database, indices and queries are optimised it shouldn't be too bad (FLW). Out of curiosity have you considered using PostgreSQL at all?

[#7]

no, it's not a local installed SQL server, it's just the management tool to manage an SQL server that is on the local network.

[#8]

Even better @chenks76, but I'd still go for a quad core CPU, they can be had for the same price ±

[#9]

it's a choice between the two listed, as those are the two base units currently sitting here.

[#10]

If the machines are similar (memory, network cards) then I would go with the E5800 (as it is the faster of the 2)

[#11]

yeah the only difference is the CPU.

[#12]

Ah! Sorry @chenks76, I got that one wrong. I thought you were looking to buy a processor to run the aforementioned hardware.

[#13]

so clock speed wins even though it's an older generation CPU ?

[#14]

Then to some extent it depends what you plan to do with the other one.

I suspect for the purpose you describe the system will spend the vast majority of its time sitting there idle, and the difference in performance between the two will be very small in real life.

If you have a heavy compute role for the second server then take the slower one for your management station. Otherwise I don't think you will be able to notice the difference.

[#15]

oh it will never be sitting idle.
it'll be used all the time during working hours.

also, neither are servers! these are both desktops. i never suggested either of them would be a server.