Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:09:19 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quiet computer Message-ID: <44u0241hf4.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <200610150041.59870.soralx@cydem.org> (soralx@cydem.org's message of "Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:41:59 -0700") References: <44wt738057.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209C94@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com> <200610140308.00451.soralx@cydem.org> <200610150041.59870.soralx@cydem.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
soralx@cydem.org writes: >> I don't really care how fast the crypto engine is on my Via system. > > neither do I care how fast it is on someone else's system :p, but I'm Fair enough. Its speed on your own system may matter less to you than you think, as well. ;-) > just curious whether the speed VIA claims, 25Gbps(!) peak is achievable Peak rate is a useless number. If it were sustainable, it wouldn't be quoted as a "peak" rate; and if it's not sustainable, it doesn't affect the perceived performance. >> I just care that it offloads the ALU. I haven't gotten around to >> proving whether (and by how much) it does so. > > did you get to the point that you're sure it's being used? Yes. it is. >> > BTW... `ubench`? :) >> >> Not impressive. > > you're using the same board as OP? No, not at all; I didn't mean to imply I was. I have the slowest (and lowest powered) Via chips I could get. The ubench numbers are slightly lower than the Pentium II system it replaced, at a similar clock rate. Note that I didn't mean the numbers were bad, either...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44u0241hf4.fsf>