Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:31:03 -0400 From: Damian Gerow <damian@sentex.net> To: hardware@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VIA C3 Message-ID: <20030618153103.GB713@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <mailman.1055949693.8442.fcurrent-l@lists.sentex.ca> References: <20030614013356.1388.qmail@web13503.mail.yahoo.com> <mailman.1055688120.18605.fcurrent-l@lists.sentex.ca> <20030618144417.GD739@sentex.net> <mailman.1055948493.5175.fcurrent-l@lists.sentex.ca> <20030618151049.GF739@sentex.net> <mailman.1055949693.8442.fcurrent-l@lists.sentex.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This isn't really a -current issue, moving to hardware. Please strip the Cc: in your reply. Thus spake Gerrit K?hn (gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de) [18/06/03 11:20]: > > FWIW, the best way I've seen to figure out which chip you're using (at least > > between Ezra/Ezra-T and Nehemiah) is to look at the clocking -- Ezra/Ezra-T > > seems to be 100*10.0, whereas Nehemiah seems to be 133*7.5. (Note that this obviously only holds true for 1GHz rated chips.) > Back to the performance-discussion between cputype 586/mmx and k6-3 > optimization: do you have a suggestion how to benchmark it? Well, there's always /usr/ports/benchmarks. nbench might be what you're looking for -- compile it once using 586/mmx support, and once using k6-3 support. Other than that, time a buildworld/buildkernel. But I'm not a benchmarking person by any means, so this may or may not be accurate. Doing the buildworld/buildkernel will probably be more intensive -- compile it with k6-3 flags, reboot, then do another compile with the same flags. Time that one. Do the whole process again with 586/mmx flags, again, timing the second of the two builds. I don't have a couple of days to throw at benchmarks, so I definitely won't be doing this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030618153103.GB713>