From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Mar 6 9:41:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302B337B718 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:41:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) id f26Hf3N55355; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:41:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:41:03 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200103061741.f26Hf3N55355@earth.backplane.com> To: Andrew Gallatin Cc: Subject: Re: Machines are getting too damn fast References: <200103060013.f260DHY46910@earth.backplane.com> <15013.2238.953211.516979@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :How's your P4 for floating point? Is real-life perf as good as the :specbench numbers would indicate, or do you need a better compiler :than GCC to get any benefit from it? My wife is a statistician, and :she runs some really fp intensive workloads. This Athlon is faster :than the Serverworks box and (barely) faster than a year-old Alpha :UP1000 for her code. : :Drew : :------------------------------------------------------------------------------ :Andrew Gallatin, Sr Systems Programmer http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gallatin My understanding is that Intel focused on FP performance in the P4, and that it is very, very good at it. I dunno how to test it though. GCC generally does not produce very good code, but I would expect that it would get reasonably close in regards to FP because Intel's FP instruction set is a good fit with it. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message