From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Aug  2 02:39:44 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA14933
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 02:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [195.1.171.130])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA14928
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 02:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
Received: (qmail 1944 invoked by uid 1001); 2 Aug 1997 09:39:34 +0000 (GMT)
To: tony@dell.com
Cc: freebsd@atipa.com, tom@sdf.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Pentium II?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 02:49:54 -0500"
References: <3.0.2.32.19970802024954.006dfb1c@bugs.us.dell.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.28.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 11:39:34 +0200
Message-ID: <1942.870514774@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>Since the hit rate of the L1 cache is usually much higher than that of the L2 
>cache, the effect of the slower L2 cache in the Pentium II is usually offset 
>by the beneficial effect of not having to access it.  So even at the same 
>clock rate, the Pentium II can run faster than the Pentium Pro.

*Can run* being the operative phrase here. According to Intel's Web site:

PPro-200, 256 KB L2 cache	8.20 SPECint95
PII-233, 512 KB L2 cache	9.49 SPECint95

So 15.7% higher SPECint95 at 16.5% higher clock rate. Personally, I don't
want to draw any conclusions at all from these numbers - they are so very
close.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no