Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:47:02 +0100 From: Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> To: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Effect of Processor and Memory on KDE4 execution speed Message-ID: <4F3B7F16.4090401@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: <CAOgwaMuLOevxuEnHvKN_FGgq%2BzPefLnmhtXVy9wnd=S=wwrjhw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOgwaMuLOevxuEnHvKN_FGgq%2BzPefLnmhtXVy9wnd=S=wwrjhw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig9AAB3707A0174B5BE25A9954 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable schrieb Mehmet Erol Sanliturk am 14.02.2012 15:39 (localtime): > Dear All , > > Today I have encountered a case which I think informing you about it ma= y be > useful . > > In my previous messages , I have mentioned very slowness of KDE4 . > > > Onto another computer I have installed DruidBSD 9.0 b56 amd64 , and KDE= 4 . > In that installation KDE4 worked surprisingly fast . > > To understand whether difference is among FreeBSD or DruidBSD , I have > installed > FreeBSD 9.0 Release amd64 and KDE4 on the same computer instead of Drui= dBSD > . > > The KDE4 has worked flawlesly i.e. , means very fast . > > To make equivalent the installations on both computers , I have install= ed > FreeBSD 9.0 Release amd64 and KDE4 on the slow computer exactly as in f= ast > computer . > > > Starting times after first boot ( to eliminate initialization effects )= are > the following > ( All timings are from "root" ) : > > > >From "startx" ( which contains "exec ... kde4 ..." ) > to appearance of KDE menu symbol at the bottom left corner : > > > Fast computer : 8 GB : 0+ ( < 1 ) minute ( 4 x 2 GB ) > Slow computer : 4 GB : 2+ ( < 3 ) minutes ( 2 x 2 GB ) ( 2 x ! GB chips= > removed ) , > 6 GB : 8+ ( < 9 ) minutes ( 2 x ( 2 , 1 ) GB ) . > ( Memory chip installation conforms to main board manua= l . ) > ( The clock does not have second counter . ) > > Fast Computer > CPU : Intel Pentium Dual CPU E2220 @ 2.40 GHz ( 2397.65-MHz K-8class = CPU ) > ACPI APIC Table : < INTEL DG965WH > > > Slow Computer > CPU : Intel Core 2 QUAD CPU Q6600 @ 2.40 GHz ( 2397.65-MHz K-8class C= PU ) > ACPI APIC Table : < INTEL DG965WH > > > ( The main boards are the same ) . > ( All of the memory chips are the same : Kingston HyperX 800 MHz ) > > > > I could not understand the reason(s) of the differences . > > > Boot DMESG outputs are attached . > Compare 'sysctl kern.timecounter'. That's the only difference I could see. Also, I'd try to disable two cores in the bios of the quad-core machine and see if it changes anything. Just to rule out scheduler issues. Have you tried memtest86 to see if RAM throughput and CPU-cache rates are comparable? -Harry --------------enig9AAB3707A0174B5BE25A9954 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk87fxYACgkQLDqVQ9VXb8gVmACfbm2U6f9+n3XmU2n7iAyS7q1Z W6YAn1LFD/YifvrPTbmGOY94hS/kcbm5 =UQ8S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig9AAB3707A0174B5BE25A9954--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3B7F16.4090401>