http://sqlblog.com/blogs/john_paul_cook/archive/2012/01/21/cpu-benchmarking-and-time-for-an-upgrade.aspxIs your SQL Server running slower than you’d like? Is it your SQL Server configuration or your slightly old hardware? We need to use tools to gather information. My subjective impression is that my 2.2 GHz laptop outperforms my 3.0 GHz overclocked desktopenCommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)http://sqlblog.com/blogs/john_paul_cook/archive/2012/01/21/cpu-benchmarking-and-time-for-an-upgrade.aspx#41230Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:04:50 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:41230GrumpyOldDBA<p>It's good but I'm not sure you can conclude from a cpu test that a SQL Server will run faster. One critical factor is the speed of the memory for this is where access to the buffer cache will be. Linchi Shea has been running a series of very interesting posts on SQL Server performance, he's just posted results for a dual 6 core, if you compare these results to the results from the quad 10 core it make interetsing reading. Most of my prod servers run on quad quad core 2.9GHz servers, another team has a quad 10 core box ( at 2.2GHz ) with 8 cores my box was much faster at making backups - it was only when the backup ran across 40 cores that it outstripped mine ( using Litespeed ) </p> <p>I agree new generation cpus are better but it's a little more complex that that I suspect.</p> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/john_paul_cook/archive/2012/01/21/cpu-benchmarking-and-time-for-an-upgrade.aspx#41234Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:55:01 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:41234John Paul Cook<p>I'm not suggesting that a SQL Server will run faster only because of a cpu test. Like you, I'm saying that the issue is complex. We need to use tools instead of making assumptions.</p>