From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Aug  2 15:13:58 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA17803
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gnostic.cynic.net (gnostic.cynic.net [198.73.220.5])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA17652
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by gnostic.cynic.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04686; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: gnostic.cynic.net: cjs owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@portal.ca>
X-Sender: cjs@gnostic.cynic.net
To: Tony Overfield <tony@dell.com>
cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd@atipa.com>, Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>,
        hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Pentium II?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970802024954.006dfb1c@bugs.us.dell.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.93.970802150916.3969K-100000@gnostic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Tony Overfield wrote:

> 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.

Do you have any benchmarks that indicate this? Or are you just dreaming?

cjs

Curt Sampson    cjs@portal.ca		Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc.		`And malt does more than Milton can
Vancouver, BC   (604) 257-9400		 To justify God's ways to man.'