lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Alpha 500 vs Bi Ppro.
On Thu, 15 May 1997, Yann DUPONT wrote:

[snip]
> Load :
>
> We compiled bogomips (bogo-1.2), and launched 256 in the same time,
> then launched xdvi & ghostscript, and compilations in the same time .
>
> -> load jump over 100 on the 2 stations, but the system is still
> responsive on the Bip & on the Alpha. With a load of 100 !!! I think
> it's really good (there wasn't disk activities at this time)
>
> compilations time are in the same range (the bip is still winner)
> The bip also finish the huge bogomips test a little before the alpha.
>
> When the load is at it's MAX, trying to refresh xdvi (with a
> postscript in it) is quite fast & smooth on the ppro, much slower &
> less smooth (that is, refresh is done little bit by little bit)
> on the ALPHA...
>
> Also tried the Unix Byte benchmark. The results are better on the
> Alpha on most cases (2x to 10x !!!! improvement).
> But in real use, This win seems not to be perceptible...
>
[snip]

You used X during some of the benchmark? I've heard that X is/was a
bottleneck on alphas but I'm not sure if that's still the case...
(ddt desided not to release an Alpha version of xquake last summer due this)
Is X and/or xquake still slow with Alpha's? If so, why? ;)
(ftp.cs.helsinki.fi:/pub/Software/Linux/Kernel/testing/ has xquake ...)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans