Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:26:06 -0400 From: Generic Player <generic@unitedtamers.com> To: Josh Paetzel <jpaetzel@hutchtel.net>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd k6-2 550 vs p2 300 Message-ID: <3960DABE.19F14A4C@unitedtamers.com> References: <NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHEELECDAA.jpaetzel@hutchtel.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As I indicated, games are the only benchmark I am interested in. I should > add that UT is the primary game that I play. > Then why were you using some stupid little benchmark program instead of UT? You claimed you were seeing a "real world benchmark" results from a specific program written for intel chips. Real world benchmarks would be starting up a UT demo and seeing what framerates you get. > For the things that I do with FBSD I don't see alot of difference between a > K6-2 and a P2, either. But then, I don't see much difference between a > classic pentium 100 and a P3-600, either. Most of the things I do with FBSD > put very little load on the CPU. Mostly I see the disk subsystem and the > memory subsystem being worked. > > For instance, I have the old www.stomped.com web server sitting here, and > its a K6-233. (stuffed with RAM, though) I didn't get the disks, but I bet > they weren't 5400 rpm IDEs. ;) > Compile times on Freebsd are not noticably different between AMD and Intel chips, they are on windows. Quake 3 framerates are only 5 fps different for me in freebsd vs 17 in windows. > Windows IS a resource hog, and it does use a lot more CPU time than FBSD. > Maybe that is why you notice a big difference in performance between OSs. I > have little love for M$crosoft, but I find it hard to believe that they > deliberately mangle the OS to run slower on a specific chip. > > Josh Its not a matter of mangling anything, its that they highly optimize it for Intel chips, and don't bother to do anything for AMD chips. I don't hate MS, I'm just telling you there is a noticable difference running AMD vs Intel on windows compared to any other OS. And I think you are in fact getting confused about the cache issue. Socket designs do not allow for off die cache unless it is located on the motherboard. There is simply no other place for it. The only cache running at 100 MHz is on your motherboard. Any on die cache runs full speed. And only intel is going back to socket 370, AMD uses super socket 7 and socket A. That's why k-6 III's were outperforming the old Xeons in cache intensive apps, it still has on on die cache at full core speed, where as slot xeons have off die cache. Generic Player To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3960DABE.19F14A4C>