From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.138]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA71482C for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:38:10 -0700 (MST) Received: from rivierenland.xs4all.nl (rivierenland.xs4all.nl [194.109.14.47]) by smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id fAG6c7W7060464 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:38:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:34:18 +0100 From: Jurriaan on Alpha To: Markus Grabert Cc: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Linux/PA-RISC speed (was Re: C240 Graphics, 64bit kernel and more) Message-ID: <20011116073418.A15527@alpha.of.nowhere> Reply-To: thunder7@xs4all.nl References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 02:08:46PM +0000, Markus Grabert wrote: > Jurriaan Kalkman wrote: > >> I can only say that compiling a kernel on my C200 takes about 2 times >> as long as on my alpha (21164, 500 Mhz, 2 Mb cache). I feel it should >> be faster. > > That's odd. > A 21164/500MHz (not 21164A or 21164PC) is slower according to > Spec_INT95, Spec_FP95 and the Spec_base(INT|FP)95 variants. Well, it actually is a 21164A I guess: cpu model : EV56 cpu variation : 7 cpu revision : 0 system type : Miata cycle frequency [Hz] : 499784372 est. timer frequency [Hz] : 1024.00 page size [bytes] : 8192 phys. address bits : 40 max. addr. space # : 127 BogoMIPS : 988.76 kernel unaligned acc : 1 (pc=fffffffc0040f064,va=fffffc8900008027) user unaligned acc : 0 (pc=0,va=0) platform string : Digital Personal WorkStation 500au cpus detected : 1 > > Indeed the benchmarks say that the Alpha is about 50% slower for FP stuff > > and just a little bit slower for INT stuff (compared to a C240 HP/UX). > > Moreover, according to SPEC: > If you compare it to a Intel CPU, the PA8200/236Mhz seem to be as fast as > a Pentium II 400-450 for integer operations and as fast as a > Pentium III 750-800 for floating point operations. > > Well, lies, bigger lies/statistics and benchmarks. > Don't trust them. > Nevertheless a factor of 2 shouldn't occur. It's a too big number. > Is it just for compiling the kernel or for every application ? > I'm most interested in the speed of compiling, since that what I do most :-) Having just downloaded the angband-2.9.4-alpha.tar.gz file, I ran this test in a fresh angband-2.9.4-alpha directory: #!/bin/sh # prep the cache find . -type f -exec cat {} > /dev/null ';' ./configure > /dev/null time sh -c "make > /dev/null" make distclean > /dev/null Both tests were run on systems with 512 Mb memory, the C200+ has a Quantum UW-SCSI harddisk, the Alpha an IBM UW-SCSI harddisk, but Bonnie shows them to be almost the same speed. I especially compiled and installed gcc-3.0.2 20010924 on the Alpha to get as close as possible in compiler versions, but the Alpha got even faster... Alpha (gcc-2.95.4) : real 5m45 user 5m13 system 9s Alpha (gcc-3.0.2 20010924): real 4m36 user 4m12 system 10s C200+ (gcc-3.0.2 20010922): real 8m23 user 7m48 system 33s dual P3/700 (gcc-2.95.4) : real 1m20 user 1m17 system 3s and I'd like to note that I was reading mail, news and ssh'ing to the C200+ from the alpha at the same time, the C200+ wasn't doing anything else. Angband-2.9.4 is a set of c-sources of some 175000 lines. The results are shocking; the C200+ is twice as slow, and uses 3 times as much system time. The angband-2.9.4-alpha sources live at ftp://clockwork.dementia.org/angband/Source/angband-2.9.4-alpha.tar.gz if anyone feels like repeating this experiment. Good luck, Jurriaan -- I expect Woman will be the last thing civilized by Man. George Meredith GNU/Linux 2.4.15-pre4 on Debian/Alpha 64-bits 988 bogomips load:1.05 1.01 0.77