Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 23:09:14 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim <dpilgrim@uswest.net> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: unknown@riverstyx.net, Mark Ovens <marko@uk.radan.com>, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk>, FreeBSD Questions <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: K6-2/333, was: Re: Debug kernel by default (was: System sizewith-g) Message-ID: <370AF68A.32DC11EF@uswest.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9904051744500.31071-100000@hades.riverstyx.net> <3709EE06.77F97B9E@uswest.net> <19990407142436.D2142@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: > On Tuesday, 6 April 1999 at 4:20:38 -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote: >> unknown@riverstyx.net wrote: >>> On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Darren Pilgrim wrote: >>>> unknown@riverstyx.net wrote: >>>>> I may be out to lunch on this one, but I'm pretty sure that the multiplier >>>>> is for the internal clock of the chip. So, if, after applying the >>>>> multiplier to one chip you get 300MHz, and after applying a different >>>>> multiplier to a different chip with a different bus speed you also get >>>>> 300MHz, you get two chips that perform the exact same number of >>>>> operations/sec. The difference is the bus speed, which affects I/O >>>>> performance, etc. A 100 MHz bus with a x3 multiplier will outperform a 66 >>>>> MHz bus with a x4.5 multiplier because the CPU will have to wait more >>>>> often when it wants to fetch non-cached data from RAM. >>>> >>>> While this is mathematically and theoretically sound thinking, tests >>>> have shown that there is little CPU/memory performance gain with a >>>> 100MHz bus. Just take a look at www.tomshardware.com. As for my own >>>> systems, I run K6-2 333s at 5x66 just because it sets the PCI and AGP >>>> clocks at their spec'd rate of 33 and 66MHz, respectively, while >>>> providing the CPU's spec'd 333MHz. >>> >>> I've seen good speed gains by moving to a 100MHz bus, although this was >>> for servers that were doing a lot of database work and heavy network >>> traffic. Perhaps it wouldn't matter much for servers doing more >>> calculation-intensive work? >> >> Aye, in a server setup a faster bus does make a difference, but my >> reference (Tom's HW) is for workstations. Did I miss the first part >> of the thread, was this discussion about servers? If so, my apologies >> for my misunderstanding. > > No, we're not talking about artificial concepts like servers and > workstations, we're talking about the low-level behaviour of the > processor and memory. Ah, okay then. I did misunderstand, but I misunderstood what I was misunderstanding. >> Disk and memory work in a server can max a slower FSB, but if the >> server is being used for CPU-intensive work, then what's the point >> of spending extra for a server? > > I'm not sure I understand this statement. It's been my experience that you can save money if you build a workstation for specific types of tasks, where are servers are best suited to mixed environments where top performance in every aspect is critical. I could be wrong, it's not unheard of. -- dpilgrim@uswest.net /\ / __ Our lies are merely the gryph@mindless.com / \/OC/URNE truth of another world ICQ: 29880099 Death is not a kill -9, just a DALnet: anim0s make world and shutdown -r now PGPKey available 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?370AF68A.32DC11EF>