Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:05:35 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: relative alpha speed Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909030903580.2081-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <199909030416.VAA07533@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, John Polstra wrote: > In article <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909012240130.706-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com>, > Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 jon@cops.com wrote: > > > > > I am a little perplexed about all of this. If the performance and > > > disk space usage are better on intel what benefit do I have using > > > an alpha instead of an intel... besides just being cooler than all > > > of my intel friends? > > > > Floating point performance rocks compared to intel. > > ... until you make the Alpha conform to the IEEE FP rules and handle > the whole range of numbers it is supposed to handle (-mieee). Then it > becomes much slower than ix86 once again. I've been disappointed in > the performance of the Alphas, given that performance is supposed to > be their strong point. I think the problem may be with our compiler. I don't think the penalty for using -mieee ought to be so high. I wonder how well the Compaq compiler deals with this. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9909030903580.2081-100000>