Subject: Re: Speed of 21066 (was: XFree86 on NetBSD/alpha)
To: Joerg Czeranski <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Dave McGuire <email@example.com>
Date: 10/22/1999 10:25:26
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Joerg Czeranski wrote:
>> >Well, I suppose I'm being a bit harsh, and I haven't tested it in
>> >about 1.5 months, so things may be better now. :-) It seems like a
>> >36Mhz SS10 with a CG6 should be slower than a 166Mhz Multia with TGA,
>> >but that's definitely not the case. :(
>> No way, man...The Multia (indeed, and every other 21066-based machine I've
>> seen) is slower than pissing tar. I have an article about it somewhere,
>> something about memory references int he 21066 being icky-slow or something.
>> The '10 will definitely run rings around it.
>Why do you think that? For most real life benchmarks (compiling etc.)
>my 21066A/233 with 256KB 2nd level cache is twice as fast as our
>computing center's SS10 machines (33 MHz).
I think that because I had them sitting right here next to each other
for a long time...and the ss10 consistently toasted the Multia.
>E.g. the numbers for maxflow (I wrote about that benchmark on this
>list, many memory references and a big additional penalty for Alpha:
>64 bit int, while the Sparc code uses 32 bit int):
> 21066A 233MHz: 267.60s, SS10 33MHz: 468.05s
Ok, that's cool and all...but I'm talking about what machines are faster
running X, compiling stuff, etc etc...I'm not talking benchmark numbers, I'm
talking real-world performance.
>Maybe the fastest available SS10 are not much slower than a 21066/166,
>but I can't imagine how they could be even faster. (I don't know the
>clock range of the SS10 models, but it certainly doesn't go beyond 66,
>or does it?)
Sure it does. Two weeks ago I had an ss10 come through here with two
200MHz processors in it. Keep in mind, though, that clock speed has little to
do with computer performance...especially when comparing across different