Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:17:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Curt Sampson <cjs@portal.ca> To: Tony Overfield <tony@dell.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd@atipa.com>, Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Pentium II? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.93.970803031523.7035A-100000@gnostic.cynic.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970803041915.006a69e4@bugs.us.dell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Tony Overfield wrote: > I think many of the benchmarks indicate this. I wasn't interested in what you think as much as which particular benchmarks indicate this. Feel free to provide references. > It should be easy to agree that larger L1 caches have higher hit rates. Sure. But the L2 cache in the PPro is running at the same speed as the L1 cache in the PPro and the PII. Thus, I don't think that having twice the L1 cache is going to make a lot of difference. Feel free to show me the actual benchmarks that prove me wrong. cjs Curt Sampson cjs@portal.ca Info at http://www.portal.ca/ Internet Portal Services, Inc. `And malt does more than Milton can Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 To justify God's ways to man.'
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.93.970803031523.7035A-100000>