Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:47:38 -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: <3960370A.96F8E5CC@unitedtamers.com> References: <NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHEEKJCDAA.jpaetzel@hutchtel.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> ummm...couple of things. First, I forgot to mention that I am running my > p2-350 at 425 mghz. That would have the cache running at 1/2 of chip speed, > or 212 mghz. The K6-2 runs it's cache at 100 mghz. Given that cache hits > are about 98-99% with modern processors I would say that is the major > advantage slot 1/slot a/socket 370 solutions have over socket 7 systems. > > Second....my major performance benchmark is 3d games....most of my Freebsd > stuff runs on old 486s and pentium 100-166 type stuff. The windows machine > gets the AGP video and P2/P3 type stuff...(games are what computers are for, > after all. :) > > Third...I don't have alot of experience with the K6-2s other than seeing > some guys run them as gaming machines. > > What do you mean when you say, "windows seemingly intentionally dogs with an > AMD chip."???? Are you trying to say that an intel socket 7 processor runs > windows better than an AMD one? I don't think intel has a socket 7 > processor that is the equivalent of the K6-2. Are you trying to say that > AMD K6-2s run slower than P2s under windows? If that is the case, I think > you are seeing the results of a real world benchmark. > > Josh > What I mean is benchmark a k-6 II and a P2 on windows, then benchmark them on a real OS. Windows runs like crap on K-6 chips, far slower than it should, where as on FreeBSD a k-6 II and a p2 perform roughly the same. And where did you get the idea that slot chips were better? Its the other way around, that's why everyone is going back to sockets. On a socket CPU the cache is on die and runs at full speed. With a slot packacge the cache chips are sperate on the card and run slower. Are you thinking about the extra cache on the motherboard perhaps? MS has long been in bed with Intel, AMD products always perform better on non-MS software. It still shouldn't be that much slower though. But keep in mind you are running a benchmark written for intel CPUs, which might use SSE, and is checking FPU performance. A real world benchmark is actually using the chip for what you want it for, in this case fire up UT and see what kind of frame rates you get. 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?3960370A.96F8E5CC>