Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:44:31 -0400 From: Damian Gerow <damian@sentex.net> To: hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VIA C3 Message-ID: <20030618214431.GN1237@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <WApzKD.A.HiC.pXI8-@coal.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> <WApzKD.A.HiC.pXI8-@coal.sentex.ca>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
(Talking about CPUTYPE for Via C3 chips, and whether i586/mmx or k6-3 is
better.)
Thus spake Damian Gerow (damian@sentex.net) [18/06/03 11:31]:
> > 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.
FWIW, I ran some quick nbench tests on my system. World and kernel compiled
with i586/mmx.
Here's the results from compiling with k6-3:
TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index
: : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
NUMERIC SORT : 213.91 : 5.49 : 1.80
STRING SORT : 17.112 : 7.65 : 1.18
BITFIELD : 4.347e+07 : 7.46 : 1.56
FP EMULATION : 14.949 : 7.17 : 1.66
FOURIER : 2315.8 : 2.63 : 1.48
ASSIGNMENT : 3.8335 : 14.59 : 3.78
IDEA : 362.06 : 5.54 : 1.64
HUFFMAN : 226.37 : 6.28 : 2.00
NEURAL NET : 3.1664 : 5.09 : 2.14
LU DECOMPOSITION : 164.11 : 8.50 : 6.14
And with i586/mmx:
TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index
: : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
NUMERIC SORT : 220.27 : 5.65 : 1.86
STRING SORT : 16.913 : 7.56 : 1.17
BITFIELD : 4.3313e+07 : 7.43 : 1.55
FP EMULATION : 15.028 : 7.21 : 1.66
FOURIER : 2310.2 : 2.63 : 1.48
ASSIGNMENT : 3.3773 : 12.85 : 3.33
IDEA : 367.09 : 5.61 : 1.67
HUFFMAN : 212.37 : 5.89 : 1.88
NEURAL NET : 3.0659 : 4.93 : 2.07
LU DECOMPOSITION : 155.45 : 8.05 : 5.82
So it looks like it's a tossup between the two, with k6-3 perhaps pulling
out marginally ahead.
Multiple runs of the tests with each flags show numbers extremely close to
the ones posted, if not exactly the same.
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030618214431.GN1237>