From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 3 03:17:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA18006 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gnostic.cynic.net (gnostic.cynic.net [198.73.220.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA17999 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by gnostic.cynic.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA07064; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:17:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: gnostic.cynic.net: cjs owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:17:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Curt Sampson X-Sender: cjs@gnostic.cynic.net To: Tony Overfield cc: FreeBSD Mailing List , Tom Samplonius , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Pentium II? In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970803041915.006a69e4@bugs.us.dell.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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.'