Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 1997 19:50:33 +0200 | From | Philippe Strauss <> | Subject | Re: Linux on AMD K6 |
| |
On Jul 14, Dan Hollis wrote > On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, yuri mironoff wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Dan Hollis wrote: > > > CPU Dhrystones > > > ---------------------- ---------- > > > AMD K6/200 374838.4 > > > Pentium Pro 200 356929.4 > > What options are you compiling with? I get 416K for a 200 MHZ PPro. > > Aside from that - Dhrystones is a useless benchmark. Try lmbench or > > do a kernel build (serial and parallel) - now that would be interesting. > > Kernel build measures the disk and i/o subsystems more than it does the > CPU. Thus kernel builds are more useless than dhrystones. I'm only
Dead wrong. At least if you are not compiling with mem=4m. Compiling is highly CPU bound. Once i measured compiles time on the same box on to different hardisk, a scsi disk and an ide disk. Compile time were falling in the same __seconds__ (was something like 12 minute (P5 90MHz))
> interested in measuring the raw CPU power, not the speed of the > SCSI disks. > > I'm using the byte bench 2.0 benchmarks with default options, I don't > touch anything. It was compiled exactly the same on both the ppro/200 and > the K6. > > People might claim dhrystones are "useless", but unfortunately it does > seem to be a good indicator of speed, despite what people claim. > > E.g. we compared a pentium and a powerpc with dhrystones. People claimed > powerpc should be faster, but no matter what application we ran, it > wasn't. In fact, each application showed exactly the same speed as > dhrystone predicted. > > So I don't listen to benchmark-critics any more. > > -Dan
-- Philippe Strauss <philou@lili.urbanet.ch>
Homepage & PGP key: http://lili.urbanet.ch
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein --
| |