Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 13:01:38 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.ORG>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030105125940.0293f4e0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20030105192556.GA526@papagena.rockefeller.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030105120224.029377d0@localhost> <3E18073C.68182FE4@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104201251.029387d0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104112015.026a5530@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104201251.029387d0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104202908.03c3b100@localhost> <20030105073804.GA72674@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030105074923.GA4956@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <3E18073C.68182FE4@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030105120224.029377d0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:25 PM 1/5/2003, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: >It is interesting, in fact, that gcc does well in all such problems. Actually, Intel was 20% faster overall on the Pentium IV in the benchmark test you cite. The article says: "On the Pentium III, gcc and Intel run very close together. The Pentium IV tests, however, show a trend that will continue throughout the rest of these tests: Intel produces faster code on almost all tests, and produces code that is 20% faster overall. Only on the Sparse Matrix Multiplication test did gcc generate the fastest code." 20% of a 3 GHz machine is a lot of cycles. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20030105125940.0293f4e0>