10g DB performance - dual versus quad core

My customer is currently using 10g DB on Dell machine (Red Hat 32 bit with 4 CPU's - dual core intel chips). During peak times they experience slow downs and see the CPU's max out at 100%. They want to add another 1500 users. I'm wondering if upgrading the chips to quad core and moving to 64 bit will solve the slowdowns? Any ideas or suggestions?

a motorcycle can move two people regardless of the number and power of the engines
what about the top sql-statements? the file I/O? the amount of RAM? or in the end the network?
have a look at awr and addm to determine the top wait events
regards
Roman

Similar Messages

ITunes stutters - go to dual or quad core?

Hi all,
I'm looking for somebody who knows about iTunes and also about hardware...
The issue I've been having for more than a year now is that due to my large library (14,000+ songs) and complex and extensive use of smart playlists, iTunes has to 'think' too much whenever a new song starts playing. Usually this causes iTunes to just freeze for 10 to 20 seconds while it updates all the playlists and the music keeps playing, but sometimes it also causes the music to stutter. I haven't been able to determine which situations cause the stuttering in particular, but suffice it to say that doing heavy photo editing in Adobe Lightroom and playing music with iTunes is usually not all that pleasant.
Now I've been wondering whether a dual or quad core processor would solve this problem. Besides the obvious extra speed, am I right in saying that the problem should largely go away because iTunes and Lightroom would be using different processors? Is the problem only with processor speed or does RAM has an influence too?)
Does anybody have some light to shed on this problem?
Thank you very much.
Tijl Kindt

I wasn't aware that I was at the bare minimum. The Athlon64 3800+ is a 2.4GHz single-core. System requirements for iTunes are 500MHz and for lightroom a Pentium 4-class processor (say 1.5GHz). Granted, I'm using them both at the same time and especially iTunes at more extreme than usual settings. I'm using Windows XP Home (32-bit) btw...
So, I guess a dual core or quad core it'll have to be then... Too bad it's gonna cost me around €350 though.
If anybody still has some ideas about solving the stuttering software-wise, then I'm all ears.
Greetings,
Tijl Kindt

Dual core versus quad core?

Is there a noticeable difference in speed when comparing a dual core versus a quad core iMac where the advertised speeds are essentially the same, say -- 2.7 ghz CPUs, both running the latest Mac OS 10.82, and iLife, iWork, or MS Office suite programs for MAC?

Chances are for the type of work you're doing an i7 iMac would be a complete waste of money. Where you may benefit is 5 years from now if your work flow changes a lot where you use apps that draw on the power of an i7. However none of can look into a crystal ball and decide today what we will need years down the road so if you want to bet safe, buy as much as you can afford.

Mac mini (Late 2012): Dual- or Quad-Core?

I'm upgrading from a MacBook (2006) and - as a frequent iPad user - am thinking of just getting a Mac mini. I'm not sure though as wether to get the i5 dual-core or i7 quad-core version.
What I'll be using it for (none of these on a professional level, prosumer at most ;)):
Photo editing (iPhoto, thinking of switching to Aperture)
Web development (Coda, Espresso, local test server)
Designing (Sketch 2)
Full-HD video editing
Web, office, social media, ...
Can I expect a signifcant performance boost at these tasks from the quad-core model or will the differences be barely noticable (also considering most of these applications will be running simultaneously)?
I'll be maxing out RAM from a third party vendor in both cases, HDD capacity is not important and I'm not going to upgrade to SSD or Fusion Drive.
What do you think? Any thoughts appreciated!

Thanks for your insights! My inital goal was being cost-efficient; Fusion Drive is only an option on the quad-core model thus making it 1080 Euros were I live. That's almost an entire new Mac mini which I could buy in 2-3 years. I don't mind CPU intensive tasks taking longer (e.g. rendering final movie) as long as the actual "creative process" runs smoothly (e.g. cutting the movie).
As you both said finding out how/if apps take advantage of multiple cores is not that easy. I guess I'll have a closer look at all the benchmark tests and reviews that will be showing up in the coming weeks.
I think Fusion Drive on a dual-core might boost performance more than just going quad-core, unfortunately this is not an option for the lower end model. Also I want to wait a little to see if Fusion Drive is proprietary Apple hardware or just implemented software-wise (which would mean I could fix a broken drive myself after warranty has expired).
By the way, any guesses on Black Friday sale options (as far as I could find out the Mac mini wasn't included last year)?

UPGRADE DUAL TO QUAD CORE PROCESSOR (MAC PRO 1,1)

I have a Mac Pro 1,1 Dual-Core Intel Xeon 3 GHz , I want to upgrade the processor
I can install Quad Core processor ?? Or What is the processor compatible with this Mac ?
Please help

Hi Hatter,
I have been thinking on the same lines here as Zoomayman, just upgraded the Graphic' s to the 5770 so I can use my New Mac Monitor. On your reply to 'Z' it would help if you added the link to said Thread , saves the ordinary folk like myself hours trying to find said thread.
Any chance of said link please
Regards
Steve ( UK )

Dual or quad core ?

I find blog articles on the web saying the Excite tablets are all quad core, but then I see other articles and shopping sites (e.g. Amazon, eBay) saying the Excite 10 LE is dual core. I am confused. Can someone clarify which of the Excite tablets are dual core and which are quad core?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Excite 10 and Excite 10 LE are different products. Excite 10 LE (dual-core) is currently available. The press release is announcing new tablets (quad-core).
- Peter

LE 9.0 performance on Mac Mini (dual core) Vs. iMac (quad core)

I am in the process of evaluating options to replace my 2007 MBP with a faster DAW. I am on a budget so while I am looking for performance improvements over what I have, I don't need overkill either. I am considering the 2011 Mac Mini (2.5 GHz, dual core) and the 2011 iMac (2.5 GHz quad - core). Whichever configuration I choose, I will bump up RAM to 8 GB.
I use LE 9.0 and a Presonus Firestudio Project and would like to know whether what kind of performance improvements I will see between the two options I am considering. I use a lot of plugins, and an external Firewire 800 drive for recording. Obviously with the Mini, I will have to buy an optical drive as well. I already have two monitors, keyboard and mouse.
The only thing that worries me about the Mac Mini is the slower 5400 rpm hard drive. While I plan on using an external drive for recording, I am concerned because of the number of plugins and sample files that need to load during recording / playback.

I am in the process of evaluating options to replace my 2007 MBP with a faster DAW. I am on a budget so while I am looking for performance improvements over what I have, I don't need overkill either. I am considering the 2011 Mac Mini (2.5 GHz, dual core) and the 2011 iMac (2.5 GHz quad - core). Whichever configuration I choose, I will bump up RAM to 8 GB.
I use LE 9.0 and a Presonus Firestudio Project and would like to know whether what kind of performance improvements I will see between the two options I am considering. I use a lot of plugins, and an external Firewire 800 drive for recording. Obviously with the Mini, I will have to buy an optical drive as well. I already have two monitors, keyboard and mouse.
The only thing that worries me about the Mac Mini is the slower 5400 rpm hard drive. While I plan on using an external drive for recording, I am concerned because of the number of plugins and sample files that need to load during recording / playback.

Quad Core Versus Dual Core on a Mac

I am going to upgrade to one of the new 27 inch iMacs. I use CS4 Premium Design Suite, PS, IL, ID and a little bit of DW. Does anyone have a comment or thought on any real benefit to a Quad Core processor? Do any of these apps support the multi threading that makes use of quad core technology? The little bit of research I have found on the internet suggests that there is not any significant performance improvement with the current software such as CS3 and CS4. The exceptions seem (and only seem) to be with some CAD applications and high end video editing.
Any input or factual data would be greatly appreciated.
Floyd

Mark, I know what paid for my G5 Tower compared to what I can get from the new iMacs is incredible.
I do ad layouts in Illustrator, sometimes very large layouts 6 feet by 4 feet for menu boards. I use Photoshop extensively for pre layout work and for my own photography. I do a bit of video work but nothing major. I use either iMovie or Final Cut Express, again mostly simple stuff, not to much rendering.
I'm probably going to put 8 gig of ram, running Snow Leopard, For what I am comparing, the Quad machine is about $300 more the the Duo Core. The Quad processor speed is 2.66 ghz, the Duo Core processor is 3.06 ghz. so this is where it gets all muddy. Duo has faster processor but if the software I use does not have the "treading" capability to make use of the 4 cores than it seems that the duo is a better choice. Am I making proper sense out o this. It used to be so much easier to compare the options.. And no one seems to want to post a list of programs that truly benefit from Quad Core.
By the way I could care less about gaming benefits.

Performance difference between 3.33 6 core and dual 2.4 quad core.

Sorry if this seems like a silly question to the technically savvy out there, but I am looking to replace my older Mac Pro. I was wondering what the performance difference between those two machines.
I am a film editor and run Final Cut as well as Avid Media Composer, plus I do effects work in After Effects. Which of the two would be bettervforvtgatbwork? Media storage issues aside, would I get better performance for video work from the lower ghz dual core or the larger ghz 6 core?
Both machines are essentially the same cost. So I wonder if there is a better choice amongbthe two, and why.
I tried some research, but couldn't find a direct comparison or a general guide that seemed to correspond to those configuration differences.

Hello nibford,
For photo editing and digital imaging I would recommend the 6-Core 3.33GHz as the better buy, but then I do not use Final Cut, Avid Media Composer, or After Effects.
The following article, from the legendary, and much quoted, Mac Performance Guide, gives an excellent insight into the new 2010 range of Mac Pros:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere.html
Unfortunately, from your point of view, but not mine, the performance tests are predominantly photography related, but there is a comparison of Performance with Adobe After Effects on Page 28:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-AfterEffects.html
There is virtually no difference in performance between the 6-Core 3.33GHz and the 8-Core 2.4GHz in those tests.
However, in the Performance with Handbrake Video Encoding on Page 29, the 6-Core 3.33GHz is only marginally slower than the 8-Core 2.93GHz, which would indicate that it would be substantially faster than the 8-Core 2.4GHz for this process:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Handbrake.html
Again the 6-Core 3.33GHz outperforms the 8-Core 2.4GHz in the Cinebench tests on Page 30:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-Cinebench.html
The only advantage that the 8-Core 2.4GHz currently appears to have over the 6-Core 3.33GHz is that it has twice the number of memory slots, and can accommodate a maximum of 64GB RAM compared to the 32GB of the latter.
In the future, applications might take full advantage of the 8-Core 2.4GHz's additional cores, but at the moment, in my opinion, the 6-Core's much faster processor tips the scales in its favour.
Regards,
Bill

2 Dual core intel xeon vs quad core. Whats the difference??

I came across someone who's selling his mac pro 1.1 (aprox 2-3 years old machine) which hosts 2 dual core intel xeon processors 2.66 Ghz (4 total cores) with an L2 cache of 4 MB per processor and 3 gb of RAM. He is asking for 1200.00
I wonder:
1. is there a significant difference between the machine described above and the new 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 series processor machines Apple offers?
2. Is 1200 a good deal considering its a 2-3 year old machine? how much would it cost me brand new?
3. I am planning to purchase the machine to use Logic Pro 8 (considering to upgrade to 9) which I currently run on my mac book intel core duo 1.8 GHZ. Which of the two machines will be optimal for it?
Thanks in advance for your time!

Using the scores on the GeekBench site, I show that a Mac Pro 1,1 2.66GHz gets a score of 4544.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/218641
The Mac Pro 4,1 Quad Core 2.66GHz with all its Nehalem glory gets a score of 9256.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/229504
Benchmark tests versus real-world performance, along with your mileage, may vary. But that should give you an idea of what kind of what you're getting.

UPGRADING AND MIXING MEMORY ON MY MAC PRO QUAD CORE DUAL 2.8 (Xeon)?

Hello,
I have a Mac Pro Quad Core Dual 2.8GHz (Xeons) with 4GB of memory (2 x 1GB Apple modules + 2 x 1GB other brand - Shown as "Manufacturer 0x855D") and now I want to fill the other 4 memory slots by adding an additional 16GB (4 x 4GB modules) for a total of 20GB of RAM.
My 2 questions are:
1.- In which order/pattern should I install these new 4 X 4GB modules along with my original Apple 2 x 1GB modules and the "Manufacturer 0x855D" 2 x 1GB modules the best way (for better performance)? - I have heard stories that if I do it improperly, I could slow down my Mac Pro...
This is how I have them configured right now:
Raiser A / DIMM 1 = 1GB (Manufaturer "0x830B") - I assume this is the Apple memory, right?
Raiser A / DIMM 2 = 1GB (Manufaturer "0x830B")
Raiser A / DIMM 3 = Empty
Raiser A / DIMM 4 = Empty
Raiser B / DIMM 1 = 1GB (Manufacturer "0x855D") - How can I find which manufacturer is this?
Raiser B / DIMM 2 = 1GB (Manufacturer "0x855D")
Raiser B / DIMM 3 = Empty
Raiser B / DIMM 4 = Empty
2.- What brand would be most compatible to work with my Apple 2GB (2 x 1GB) factory memory? Kingston? Crucial? Mushkin? iRam? Corsair? OWC? (Does OWC sell their own brand? or which one do they carry?-its not specified on their web)
Thank you so much in advance for all your help!

About RAM installation in the Mac Pro
Mac Pro memory arrangement photos
Mac Pro Memory Configuration
Memory Tests- "2008" Mac Pro
Ram should be installed minimally in matched pairs and optimally in matched quads. This means the memory modules are the same size and specifications. They should also be equipped with the Apple-certified style of heat sink.
Brand really doesn't mean much as long as they work.

Is the mac mini server the same hardware as the other mac minis (except for the quad core i7 and dual hard drives) with different software or is it configured differently?

I have a mac mini with an i7 dual core processor. It is perceptably slower than my macbook pro with a quad core i7. Does the mac mini server have the same hardware configuation as the regular mac mini with server software or is the hardware different (aside from the i7 quad core and dual hard drives)? I want a mini with a quad core i7...

Your assumption is correct. The server does however only
have the Intel HD3000 graphics like the base model with
no option, at this time, for the discrete graphics chip. So,
depending on what you are using it for, that could be a deal
breaker. Remember that your MBP does have a discrete
graphics chip.
I have a 2011 Mini Server connected to a Thunderbolt display
that gets used as an engineering workstation and general
personal use (some photo editing, LP restoraton, general
internet browsing). You simply just not enable any of the
server services. I find the combination to work quite well
for my purposes. I also have a 13" 2.7 GHz i7 Macbook Pro
which is pretty much strictly for work. As far as CPU
power it is pretty much equivelent to your Mini. For the most
part I find the Mini does outperfom my MBP. I heavily use
Parallels and Windows7 virtual machines, so the more cores
the better.
So, If you do a lot of CPU intensive stuff that is multithreaded,
the Server may help. If it is graphics intensive and your software
heavily leaverages the GPU, you may actually take a hit on
performance.

Error message on my Mac Pro Quad Core Dual

Hello..I'm hoping someone out there can help or advise me.
I turned on my mac this morning to find it's normal loading screen of grey with the darker grey logo in centre..all normal at this stage. This was followed by a wipe from top to bottom making the background grey a little darker and in the centre the apple logo was replaced by what appeared to be a semi transparent power button symbol with the words. "You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the restart button"
I have tried this several times to no avail I have also zapped the P RAM again nothing. Can anyone out there help. I have a Mac Pro Quad Core Dual which is only a few months old and is up to date with its system software.
I could be so grateful of any assistance.
Warm regards
Sophia

Make an appointment. But in the meantime...
So from cold boot, you can't do the Command Option P R through 2-3 full reboot cycles (don't let up)?
Unplug everything and let it sit overnight without power cord or anything. That is the only way to rest the SMC system management controller on the 2008 model, the older model still had a reset button.
Also learned that the 2008 Macs can all boot AHT if the original OEM installer was used to install the system and the drive has not be completely reformatted and retail OS X used, just holding down "D" on startup. But you have to
Also, pull all your hard drives. Rule out that, which I have seen a hard drive cause panic on startup, which required disabling journaling and other repairs from Disk Utility and deleting caches, then repair, and finally do Safe Boot (shift key down on startup).
The only way to test RAM is with TechTool Deluxe or Pro; with Memtest or Rember; and to test some devices is to try using a differnent one, keyboard and mouse included if you have any.
Last hope: open case, look inside, take the two RAM Riser cards and pull out, check the DIMMs are fully seated.
If you have 3rd party memory, remove that (would need to before taking in probably).
Might want to put RAM back to way it shipped with 2 x 1GB and one DIMM on each Riser in slot one. Maybe that will wake this sleeping giant. Changing RAM config use to be one way to clear nvram in the distant past in the time of Arthur.
PS: it is "odd" to find a BTO 3.2GHz system, and only 2GB. For memory performance, Barefeats found a marked improvement with 8 DIMMs, and of course Mac Pro really needs memory to feed 8 cores and pro apps (2GB would be okay for web and email type use only).

Should I go with a dual core or quad core MacBook?

Hi all,
I am going to be a college student this fall majoring in a science related field. My first question is what processor I should go with. I am looking at either a 13" MBP with a dual core i7 and 8 GB of RAM (750GB HD), 13" MBP w/ a dual core i5, 8GB RAM and 500GB HD, or a 15" quad core i7 with 8GB RAM and 500 GB HD. I plan on upgrading to a SSD once prices come down in a few years and would like to stick with the MBP without Retina Display so that I can upgrade RAM and HD later on.
Will I see a noticeable difference between dual core i5 and i7? From what I have seen, it has not been much of a difference. I only plan to do light Photoshop and doubt I will do any video editing or even 3D modelling for the most part. This will mainly be used for research (web), streaming, and Office. I know that the i5 is more than capable of all of that, but I am looking to make this machine last 4+ years at least. That is why I am considering jumping up to the 15" MBP just to get the quad core and ensure that I will have a longer lasting machine.
Most of the time the laptop will be travelling around, but I will also be plugging this into a Thunderbolt Display for more screen space.
Let me know what you all think! Right now, I am leaning towards the 13" MBP with dual core i7, but this is subject to change. Will it last throughout college?
Thanks,
Sean

seanbrownie wrote:
Screen size set aside since I plan on using a TBD most of the time,
Then you want the more powerful graphics of the 15" with it's dedicated GPU to better/faster drive the external display as it's larger, and larger displays pumps more pixels so you also need the better cooling of the 15"
would adding more RAM solve the OS X upgrade issues over time?
Yes, but more RAM isn't a cure all, processors and graphics also has to be powerful to last longer.
RAM allows one to do more things at the same time, and gives a performance boot with programs with larger files it's working on (like large Photoshop and video files)
Plus, would upgrading the HD to SSD help in making the jump to say OS X 10.11, 10.12 down the road easier?
Not that much really, with the non-Retina 15" you can put in a 1TB SSD when the prices come down further
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120%2060041492 0&IsNodeId=1&name=513GB%20-%201TB
It would be nice to save a little on the screen size since I won't be able to utilize the 15" to its maximum potential when I'm working at my desk.
Your on the wrong platform if your looking to save money.
If you compare specs and performance of the hardware Apple offers for sale and equivilent i5/dual cores with Intel HD graphics, you'll find for $1500 buys a Mac and for $400 buys the same in a Windows PC.
Really the best value comes with the 15" as if your in that pro market for such a machine you might as well get OS X with it as PC's cost about the same in that range.
The really best value is a Windows 7 tower, that way it's parts are all upgradable and can last a decade or more on one Widnows OS version.
Several of my friends think I'm crazy spending $10,000 on Mac's in 10 years, they are still on their XP towers and haven't paid much more than $2000 over that same time.
Of course now XP is dead and they have to upgrade to Windows 7 towers, but they really get good value out of their boxes.
Mac's are not for those tight on a budget, I don't advise. A Windows machine will do the job for most people
Perhaps a Windows 3D gaming tower and a iPad?

Macbook pro, dual core or quad core?

Hey guys Im getting an early college present and was wondering which Macbook I should look at. This will be my one and only computer while im in college. No photo editing or anything like that, maybe some video editing but it will be almost none. Will be used to surf the web and write documents. My question is should i get the dual core or quad core processor? Will it really matter for what i want it for? One thing I absolutely hate is lag! So the faster of the two the better.

tony477g wrote:
So if I went with the quadcore because you guys say it is faster than the 2.9 ghz dualcore. Would the difference be noticable between the 2.6 ghz and the 2.3 ghz? I noticed the 2.6 has 8 gb to the 4gb and 750gb to the 500 gb.
Well, actually, only one guy said the quad core would be faster, but it is not clear why they said that. You said you were only going to use it "to surf the web and write documents." Well, guess what. You don't need a quad-core for that. You don't need a dual-core for that. I've surfed the web and written documents on my old single-core iPhone. Those tasks are just not that demanding.
So unless there are more things you want to do that you haven't mentioned, there is just about no way it's worth paying for quad-core or a 2.6GHz processor if all you are going to do is surf the web and write documents.
The quad-core is going to speed up operations that specifically benefit from parallel processing, like intensive editing of photo/audio/video, or bulk encoding of audio and video, or specific math apps, stuff like that. And most Mac users would not benefit from choosing the 2.6GHz over the 2.3GHz because the performance of so many common uses depends not only on the CPU speed, but actually on the overall balance of CPU, RAM, and disc. In other words, if you really have a legitimate application for 2.6GHz it usually means you must also install a great deal more RAM and also an SSD to avoid creating a bottleneck that holds back the CPU. But then you would have a machine that is massively overpowered and overpriced for surfing the web and writing documents.
You could surf the web and write documents quite effectively on the least expensive MacBook that Apple sells. But since you do want to keep it throughout all of college, it is a good idea to buy something higher than the bottom of the line. For a Mac for very basic uses that should last four years, I would suggest:
13-inch MacBook Air with 256GB SSD storage and 8GB RAM
13-inch MacBook Pro with 500GB HD storage and 8GB RAM
13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display with 256GB SSD storage and 8GB RAM
(You didn't mention what your budget is)
I suggested 13-inch because it's more portable than the 15-inch but more comfortable for 4 years than an 11-inch. I chose storage sizes that would be appropriate since you said you would do some video. And I chose 8GB RAM because 4GB may not be enough for 4 years, and also because insufficient RAM is often a bigger cause of lag than CPU or disk speed.
If you have a limited amount of money, from this point on you'll need to justify why you would want a bigger screen, a faster CPU, or more cores given the two tasks you said you'd be doing most of the time. Because again, if you didn't actually need a Mac, you could write documents and surf the web on an iPad with the Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover and be done for $600.

10g DB performance - dual versus quad core

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for