From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 18 14:44:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F94C37B401 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pyroxene.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30B643FBF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:44:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from damian@sentex.net) Received: from pegmatite.sentex.ca (pegmatite.sentex.ca [192.168.42.92]) by pyroxene.sentex.ca (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5ILiW8C020452 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:44:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from damian@sentex.net) Received: by pegmatite.sentex.ca (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B876717105; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:44:31 -0400 From: Damian Gerow To: hardware@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030618214431.GN1237@sentex.net> References: <20030614013356.1388.qmail@web13503.mail.yahoo.com> <20030618144417.GD739@sentex.net> <20030618151049.GF739@sentex.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Key-Id: 0xB841F142 X-GPG-Fingerprint: C7C1 E1D1 EC06 7C86 AF7C 57E6 173D 9CF6 B841 F142 X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Virus-Scanned: By Sentex Communications (lava/20020517) Subject: Re: VIA C3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:44:36 -0000 (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.