Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 04:21:53 -0500 From: Tony Overfield <tony@dell.com> To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: freebsd@atipa.com, tom@sdf.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Pentium II? Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970803042153.006a69e4@bugs.us.dell.com> In-Reply-To: <1942.870514774@verdi.nethelp.no> References: <Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 02:49:54 -0500"> <3.0.2.32.19970802024954.006dfb1c@bugs.us.dell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:39 AM 8/2/97 +0200, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: >*Can run* being the operative phrase here. According to Intel's Web site: > >PPro-200, 256 KB L2 cache 8.20 SPECint95 >PII-233, 512 KB L2 cache 9.49 SPECint95 > >So 15.7% higher SPECint95 at 16.5% higher clock rate. Personally, I don't >want to draw any conclusions at all from these numbers - they are so very >close. Right. It *can run* faster. Sometimes it's faster, sometimes it's slower. It depends on the cache hit rates. The old saw is that the Pentium Pro is faster "clock-for-clock" than the Pentium II. That may often be true for "clockrate-for-clockrate" comparisons measured over a time period, but it is not generally true on a "clockcycle-for-clockcycle" basis. I was just trying to point out that important difference. - Tony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.2.32.19970803042153.006a69e4>