From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 3 02:25:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA15970 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 02:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bugs.us.dell.com (bugs.us.dell.com [143.166.169.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA15962 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 02:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ant.us.dell.com (ant.us.dell.com [198.64.66.34]) by bugs.us.dell.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA02552; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 04:22:01 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970803042153.006a69e4@bugs.us.dell.com> X-Sender: tony@bugs.us.dell.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 04:21:53 -0500 To: sthaug@nethelp.no From: Tony Overfield Subject: Re: Pentium II? Cc: freebsd@atipa.com, tom@sdf.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <1942.870514774@verdi.nethelp.no> References: <3.0.2.32.19970802024954.006dfb1c@bugs.us.dell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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