>> HyperSPARC *needs* high clock frequencies, as can be seen here, to 
>> perform well.
>>
> hmm i got a diffrent result. All tested with a SparcStation 20 with 
> 512MB RAM and Seagate ST32550WC.
> I always run each test 3 times for each processor and throw away the 
> worst and the best result.
> 
> time bzip2 --best gcc-4.0.tar
> 1x    Ross    HyperSparc RT620B \w RT626    125    1398.692sec (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=hypersparc)
> 1x    Sun    SuperSparc II \w SuperCache    75    1798.430sec  (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=supersparc)
> 1x    Sun    SuperSparc \w SuperCache    60        2278.572sec     (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=hypersparc)
> 1x    Ross    HyperSparc RT620A \w RT625    55        2464.82sec (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=supersparc)
> 
> i think the RT620B start to suffer from disk i/o-limitations, because a 
> RT620D with 180Mhz isn't really faster.
> 
> time oggenc -m 160 -M160 MikeOldfield-TubularBellsPart1.wav
> 1x    Ross    HyperSparc RT620B \w RT626    125     8692.360sec (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=hypersparc)
> 1x    Sun    SuperSparc II \w SuperCache    75    16402.050sec (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=supersparc)
> 1x    Ross    HyperSparc RT620A \w RT625    55        18890.194sec (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=hypersparc)
> 1x    Sun    SuperSparc \w SuperCache    60        19568.501sec (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=supersparc)
> 
> I think the values speak on there own. The RT620B is twice as fast as 
> the SuperSparcII.
> 
> ./Run dhry2reg (UnixBench 4.1.0)
> 1x    Ross    HyperSparc RT620B \w RT626    125   210999.300 (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=hypersparc)
> 1x    Sun    SuperSparc II \w SuperCache    75    121819.300 (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=supersparc)
> 1x    Sun    SuperSparc \w SuperCache    60    96130.500    (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=supersparc)
> 1x    Ross    HyperSparc RT620A \w RT625    55    93506.100 (gcc 
> 3.3.3nb3/NetBSD 3.0/-O3 -mcpu=hypersparc)
> 
> With the huge L2 Cache on all processors, this test should be completly 
> inside the L2-Cache.
> The INT-performance is nearly the same.

thanks for the numbers. i saved 'em in my archive :)

> don't trust benchmarks you don't manipulate on your own.

if churchill had known computing, he'd given us the appropriate statement ;)

> Also have a 
> look at the internal differences between
> HyperSparc and SuperSparc.

'The level-2 cache on HyperSPARC modules has a lower latency 
(zero-CPU-bus-wait-state load/store access for cache hits) than that 
that found on cached SuperSPARC modules.' etc.

but you know this site (mbus.sunhelp.org), as i just saw =8-)

> The HyperSparc has _2_ FPUs, the SuperSparc 
> has only 1. The SuperSparc is a bit faster then
> a Pentium P54C, the HyperSparc is faster then a Pentium P54C and at the 
> same level as a Pentium P55C (MMX)

hm, the P55C has it's (tiny) performance gain from doubled L1 caches, 
IIRC, and maybe another organization of associativity of it's cachelines 
(just a thought).