From owner-freebsd-hardware Mon Jun 9 20:54:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA06127 for hardware-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA06099 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.mat.net (root@earth.mat.net [205.252.122.1]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/) with SMTP id XAA16962; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Journey2.mat.net (journey2.mat.net [205.252.122.116]) by earth.mat.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA19567; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:53:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:53:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@Journey2.mat.net To: Steve Passe cc: Tom Samplonius , freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fastest possible FreeBSD system? In-Reply-To: <199706100304.VAA18334@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Steve Passe wrote: > Hi, > > > > 233mHz PPros, now that the PII is available, and intel is struggling to make > > > the PII look attractive from a performance point of view. > > > > I thought the PII was intented to a consumer level product, while the > > PPro was the server/workstation product? The smaller cache, and new cost > > saving chip packaging seems to point towards targetting the consumer > > market. > > The cache isn't smaller, just slower. Since a PII-233x512 will outperform > a PPro-200x512, and is already considerably cheaper, I don't see a > consumer vs server distinction (even if intel sales might want us to think so). > It's not clear to me yet whether the PII will support a quad setup, but > dual boards are available now. > > Intel Pentium II 266 512K $888 > Intel Pentium II 233 512K $748 > Intel Pentium Pro 200 512K $1072 > Intel Pentium Pro 200 256K $525 > > --- > > What about the difference between a PPro with 256k onchip cache, as > >opposed to 512k onchip cache? > > I haven't seen anything definative on this yet. Since you can't turn off > the top 256k cache its hard to find otherwise identical setups for a fair test. Steve, since the PPro cache is accessed at the clock rate, and the Pentium II cache is accessed at the bus rate, I would think the PPro would win hands down, in performance, no? ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------