Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 06:57:55 -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: <395F2033.20AB83A8@unitedtamers.com> References: <NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHGEJICDAA.jpaetzel@hutchtel.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think what you are seeing is the benefits of the p2's onboard cache > running at 1/2 of core speed. There are significant achitechture > differences between the socket 7 and slot one processors that make mghz > comparisons a poor judge of performance when comparing between them. I have > noticed that my P2-350 is quite a bit faster than a comparably set up k6-2 > 450 that I have played around with, so I don't think you are "doing it > wrong" or anything like that. > > Um, huh? Why would having a slower cache be a benefit? Quite a bit faster doing what kind of operations and on what OS if I may ask? I find that freebsd gets alot more out of the k-6 line once you compile a kernel using the tweaks for k-6 chips, and windows seemingly intentionally dogs with an AMD chip. A k-6 II should be roughly the same, or a little faster than the same clock speed p2 in everything except FPU. The only thing a p2 should be noticably faster for is 3d apps. Do you have k-6 write allocate enabled in your BIOS and kernel? 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?395F2033.20AB83A8>