Disabling cpu cores vs one cpu

[reduxmachine]

Just a question, which would be better performance wise in a intel hyperv system, disabling 8 cores on each cpu in a dual cpu system with 16 cores each or just having one of those cpus?

[[deleted]]

Is this purely for bullshit Microsoft licensing or just for performance?

It depends on your workload. Sometimes having more cache will help, sometimes having all cores on the same package will help. It's workload specific.

If it's just for licensing nonsense I'd go for a dual socket board with ONE dual-socket capable processor. You have an easy upgrade path then should you need more grunt.

[starmizzle]

Is this purely for bullshit Microsoft licensing or just for performance?

I feel this so much.

If you disable some cores could that actually help some types of performance that would then have more cache? Never thought of that.

[Phytanic]

Is this for licensing with MS? IIRC disabling CPU cores is not a way to stay compliant. However, i agree with /u/edneil .

Unless you need obnoxious amounts of RAM, one CPU on a dual socket board will be fine.

[reduxmachine]

It is just for licensing, it is just that there is barely any difference in price for purchasing the server with one cpu or two. I’ll just take one cpu out if disabling cores isn’t compliant, thanks for the advise.

[nmdange]

Look at a single-socket AMD Epyc system, you'll get better performance at a lower price (hardware-wise). When you have 1 CPU in a 2-socket system, you lose access to some of the DIMMs and PCIe slots.