Author: Kim Hvarre
Date: 02:46:37 07/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 1998 at 00:35:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: snipsnip >Somehow our benchmarks are different. First, I don't see how the Xeon is better >at context-switching than a normal PII.. that is independent of cache >completely. however, I have benched my P6/200 vs PII/300's and get 1.41 every >time I try, using crafty. The first benchmark data I got on a Xeon (source I >can't reveal) was exactly 2.25X faster than what I am getting on my P6/200. >This makes sense as crafty has no MMX code whatsoever, so that both processors >are using the same core technology and relative cache speeds. But note that I >am a real 32-bit application here with no known-to-be-bad stuff tucked away to >hurt performance. > >For comparison, the AMD K6 seems a perfect match for the P6/200 when the clocks >are matched... But the Xeon is clocked faster.. Qouting from Ed's benchmarkpage: Pentium PRO 200 1:02 7:38 1:57 0:19 4:56 0:26 Cyrix 200 1:22 10:12 2:20 0:17 3:45 0:22 AMD K6 200 0:47 5:50 1:30 0:15 3:45 0:20 one must (?) conclude, that the Rebelcode has "known-to-be-bad stuffed tucked away" or? As You know these figures are average from several users. Perhaps the diff. comes from the L1 cache - I don't remember where PP differ from K6 in that respect. kim
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.