From owner-freebsd-alpha Thu Sep 2 21:16:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from wall.polstra.com (rtrwan160.accessone.com [206.213.115.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D846214D42 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:16:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13]) by wall.polstra.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00374; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:16:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) From: John Polstra Received: (from jdp@localhost) by vashon.polstra.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id VAA07533; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:16:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199909030416.VAA07533@vashon.polstra.com> To: dfr@nlsystems.com Subject: Re: relative alpha speed In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Cc: alpha@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article , Doug Rabson wrote: > On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 jon@cops.com wrote: > > > I am a little perplexed about all of this. If the performance and > > disk space usage are better on intel what benefit do I have using > > an alpha instead of an intel... besides just being cooler than all > > of my intel friends? > > Floating point performance rocks compared to intel. ... until you make the Alpha conform to the IEEE FP rules and handle the whole range of numbers it is supposed to handle (-mieee). Then it becomes much slower than ix86 once again. I've been disappointed in the performance of the Alphas, given that performance is supposed to be their strong point. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." -- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message