From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Apr  2 04:19:05 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA25903
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 04:19:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shadows.aeon.net (bsdhack@shadows.aeon.net [194.100.41.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA25880
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 04:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bsdhack@localhost)
          by shadows.aeon.net (8.8.5/8.8.3) id PAA03426;
          Wed, 2 Apr 1997 15:19:20 +0300 (EET DST)
From: mika ruohotie <bsdhack@shadows.aeon.net>
Message-Id: <199704021219.PAA03426@shadows.aeon.net>
Subject: Re: p166 vs. p166mmx
In-Reply-To: <33414845.51AD@db-net.com> from Wilson MacGyver at "Apr 1, 97 12:39:17 pm"
To: macgyver@db-net.com (Wilson MacGyver)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 15:19:20 +0300 (EET DST)
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > make -k world 7595.59s user 1843.94s system 87% cpu 3:00:48.28 total
> > make -k world 5982.25s user 1636.02s system 87% cpu 2:24:21.88 total
> Wouldn't this be because of the larger L1 cache? If memory
> serves, L1 cache was increased from 16K to 32K...

yes, but still i didnt expect the difference to be about 21% for user and 17%
for total time...


mickey