From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 25 17:17:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BAF16A41C for ; Wed, 25 May 2005 17:17:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nb_root@videotron.ca) Received: from relais.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4C543D1F for ; Wed, 25 May 2005 17:17:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nb_root@videotron.ca) Received: from clk01a ([66.130.198.54]) by VL-MO-MR007.ip.videotron.ca (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTP id <0IH2006JI2OYBH@VL-MO-MR007.ip.videotron.ca> for freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org; Wed, 25 May 2005 13:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:17:15 -0400 From: Nicolas Blais To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Message-id: <200505251317.22128.nb_root@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary=nextPart5841627.xz1AnS1pYk Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Subject: amd64 optimized gcc? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:17:23 -0000 --nextPart5841627.xz1AnS1pYk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I am developping a software that follows a random()-dependant algorithm whi= ch=20 is extremely cpu intensif.=20 I decided to run on different platforms to see how it performed based on cp= u=20 and os (in a way of benchmarking) and I'm surprised by the numbers: Reference times for benchmark (5e+07 run of the algorithm): (FreeBSD/i386) Venice (S939, 512K L2 cache) Athlon64 3000 overclocked @ 26= 55=20 Mhz : 78.3072 s (638511 r/s) Note: Cool 'n' Quiet! Disabled in BIOS. Note: 1 G RAM (FreeBSD/amd64) Venice (S939, 512K L2 cache) Athlon64 3000 overclocked @ 2= 655=20 Mhz : 71.2521 s (701732 r/s) Note: Cool 'n' Quiet! Disabled in BIOS. Note: 1 G RAM (Knoppix/i386) Clawhammer (S747, 1MB L2 cache) Athlon64 3200 @ 2000 Mhz := =20 133.858 s (373325 r/s) Note: Compaq R3240CA Laptop, Cool 'n' Quiet! forced by BIOS. Note: 512 M RAM (FreeBSD/amd64) Clawhammer (S747, 1MB L2 cache) Athlon64 3200 @ 2000 Mhz := =20 47.2754 s (1057630 r/s) Note: Compaq R3240CA Laptop, Cool 'n' Quiet! forced by BIOS. sysctl hw.acpi.cpu.px_control=3D-1 Note: 512 M RAM (FreeBSD/i386) Pentium II @ 233 Mhz : 538.136 s (92913.3 r/s) Note: 192 M RAM Not surprising is the Pentium II :). What is surprising is that amd64 Free= BSD=20 seems to execute code faster than i386 FreeBSD, so I'm wondering if gcc=20 (amd64) really optimizes code for the cpu. If it is, I would probably move = my=20 httpd server to amd64... Also, maybe less surprising is that Knoppix sucks running the algorithm for= =20 some reason and that L2 cache really is a big factor (my Laptop outperforms= =20 my heavily overclocked box). Any comments? =2D-=20 =46reeBSD 6.0-CURRENT #2: Sun May 22 11:29:47 EDT 2005 =20 nicblais@clk01a:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/CLK01A=20 PGP? : http://66.130.198.54:8081/security/nb_root.asc --nextPart5841627.xz1AnS1pYk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBClLMiz38ton5LGeIRAvw7AJ97aSVuTJn3Pxw7ahROhgy6Z98lCgCeNkLs VcmPoCAV3tXf3MLnQZp2ylY= =Pjk4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart5841627.xz1AnS1pYk--