Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:21:52 -0500 From: "Josh Paetzel" <jpaetzel@hutchtel.net> To: "Generic Player" <generic@unitedtamers.com>, <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: amd k6-2 550 vs p2 300 Message-ID: <NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHMELNCDAA.jpaetzel@hutchtel.net> In-Reply-To: <3960DABE.19F14A4C@unitedtamers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: generic [mailto:generic]On Behalf Of Generic Player > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:26 PM > To: Josh Paetzel; questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: amd k6-2 550 vs p2 300 > > > > 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. I you would read my messages a little more closely. What I said was, "maybe you are seeing the results of a real-world benchmark." What I meant by that was, if windows is faster at something, isn't that a real world benchmark telling you that it is faster? Real world benchmarks would > be starting up a UT demo and seeing what framerates you get. > Right....and my p2 is faster than aforementioned K6-2. > > 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. Exactly...that is why K6-2 L2 cache runs at 100mghz and P2 cache runs at 1/2 core 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. > So now we are talking about K6-3s? I suppose those are way faster than P3s, too. :) Josh > 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?NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHMELNCDAA.jpaetzel>