Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 16 May 1997 19:02:47 +0300 (EET DST) | | From | Tuomas Heino <> | | Subject | Re: 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 ...)
|  |