Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 21:08:09 -0500 From: "Josh Paetzel" <jpaetzel@hutchtel.net> To: "Generic Player" <generic@unitedtamers.com>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: amd k6-2 550 vs p2 300 Message-ID: <NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHEEKJCDAA.jpaetzel@hutchtel.net> In-Reply-To: <395F2033.20AB83A8@unitedtamers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Generic Player > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 5:58 AM > To: Josh Paetzel; questions@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: amd k6-2 550 vs p2 300 > > > > > I think what you are seeing is the benefits of the p2's onboard cache > > running at 1/2 of core speed. There are significant achitechture > > differences between the socket 7 and slot one processors that make mghz > > comparisons a poor judge of performance when comparing between > them. I have > > noticed that my P2-350 is quite a bit faster than a comparably > set up k6-2 > > 450 that I have played around with, so I don't think you are "doing it > > wrong" or anything like that. > > > > > > Um, huh? Why would having a slower cache be a benefit? Quite a bit > faster doing what kind of operations and on what OS if I may ask? I > find that freebsd gets alot more out of the k-6 line once you compile a > kernel using the tweaks for k-6 chips, and windows seemingly > intentionally dogs with an AMD chip. A k-6 II should be roughly the > same, or a little faster than the same clock speed p2 in everything > except FPU. The only thing a p2 should be noticably faster for is 3d > apps. Do you have k-6 write allocate enabled in your BIOS and kernel? > > Generic Player > > ummm...couple of things. First, I forgot to mention that I am running my p2-350 at 425 mghz. That would have the cache running at 1/2 of chip speed, or 212 mghz. The K6-2 runs it's cache at 100 mghz. Given that cache hits are about 98-99% with modern processors I would say that is the major advantage slot 1/slot a/socket 370 solutions have over socket 7 systems. Second....my major performance benchmark is 3d games....most of my Freebsd stuff runs on old 486s and pentium 100-166 type stuff. The windows machine gets the AGP video and P2/P3 type stuff...(games are what computers are for, after all. :) Third...I don't have alot of experience with the K6-2s other than seeing some guys run them as gaming machines. What do you mean when you say, "windows seemingly intentionally dogs with an AMD chip."???? Are you trying to say that an intel socket 7 processor runs windows better than an AMD one? I don't think intel has a socket 7 processor that is the equivalent of the K6-2. Are you trying to say that AMD K6-2s run slower than P2s under windows? If that is the case, I think you are seeing the results of a real world benchmark. Josh Josh > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHEEKJCDAA.jpaetzel>