From owner-freebsd-smp Thu Nov 4 4: 6: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from gw0.boostworks.com (gw0.boostworks.com [194.167.81.213]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B1C15062 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:05:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from root@synx.com) Received: from synx.com (root@rn.synx.com [192.1.1.241]) by gw0.boostworks.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA05362; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:04:29 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <199911041204.NAA05362@gw0.boostworks.com> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:04:26 +0100 (CET) From: Remy Nonnenmacher Reply-To: remy@synx.com Subject: Re: Good SMP Motherboards To: Joachim.Strombergson@emw.ericsson.se Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3821378D.D532AB2@emw.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 4 Nov, Joachim Strombergson wrote: > Tja! > > On 03-Nov-99 Bruce Albrecht wrote: >> I'm looking for a good SMP motherboard for $150 or less. Any >> recommendations? If I want also onboard SCSI, what's a good, cheap MB >> run? > > I don't know how much they cost in the US, but when I bought my ABIT BP6 > in June/July this summer I paid approx 160 USD for it. The board is a > PPGA370 board for Celerons. I use two Celery 366:s on it and get a rock > stable system @ 467MHz. I really like the extensive settings of the BIOS > that includes temp watch, individual voltage control and fan control. > > I haven't done any comparison with other systems, I just appreciate how > much faster it is compared to my old, P133 system. :-) > > BTW: Has aybody done any FreeBSD-SMP system rating? What would be good > benchmarks? > Here is some using the rc5des client software (latest version) : Abit BP6 2x466 Celerons, -CURRENT : 2.60 Mkey/s ( 100$/proc) C440GX+ 2xPIII Xeon 500, -STABLE : 2.73 MKey/s (10000$/proc) L440GX+ 2xPIII 500 , -CURRENT : 2.82 Mkey/s ( 260$/proc) No overclocking. The C and L 440 are pure Intel boxed rack servers (SC440 and LB440GX). All Mobos uses ECC-SDRAM, no EDO. Remarks: - We would have expected the Xeon machine to perform better than the PIII standard processor. In this matter, rc5des and dry say : No real difference. - CURRENT implements a kind of processor affinity that seems helpfull. - I can't upgrade the Xeon machine to CURRENT since it's a production machine but I hope to see improvements as soon as it will be. (Jordan, fork, fork !! ;) ). - Linear interpolation for a Celeron 500 would lead to 2.80 Mkey/s which is nearly what gave the PIII. If this is exact, the performance/price ratio is outstanding. - This is a pure core test. Do not expect same ratio on dayly operations. - David Malone have a really interesting graph that shows impact of cache size and RAM speed over a core-intensive process. It can be found at : http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwmalone/comp/perf.ps and shows the L1, L2 and RAM speed and size steps. Speculation: Intel build the same core every time. If the cache runs full speed, it's a Xeon. If only half of the cache runs at full speed, it's a PIII, if a quarter of the cache runs at full speed it's a celeron. If the cache runs at half speed, it's a PII. If nothing works, back to the fundry. Probably exagerated, but it's the basic idea. RN. IeM To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message