Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:53:23 -0500 From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New != Faster Message-ID: <46645FA3.2000003@tundraware.com> In-Reply-To: <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org> References: <466451CA.6020108@tundraware.com> <4664572A.4060003@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Colin Percival wrote: > Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> Old 2 PIII @600Mhz 768K 26M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP >> 50-60 min >> New Pent D (2 core)@3.2GHz 2G 50M/sec 6.2-stable/SMP >> 40-50 min >> Fast 2 Xeon @3GHz 3G 130M/sec 4.11-stable/SMP >> 8 min >> >> Is the difference in speed >> attributable to 4.11 being faster than 6.2? > > Close. The difference in speed is due to the compiler in 4.11 being > faster than the compiler in 6.2. FreeBSD uses the gcc compiler, and > between FreeBSD 4.11 and FreeBSD 6.2 that has been upgraded from 2.9 > to 3.4. The general trend each time gcc is upgraded is that it takes > 2x longer to compile code, but produces code which is 5% faster (as a > result of "working harder" to find optimizations). > > FreeBSD 6.2 is faster than FreeBSD 4.11 for almost everything except > compiling itself. :-) > > Colin Percival > So ... if I ran compute bound tests like SPECmark or some kind of I/O intensive tests, I should expect better runtime performance from 6.2 than 4.11... I can live with that :) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46645FA3.2000003>