From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kurt Fitzner Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] B132L outperforms C160 - 64-bit userland needed? Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:42:06 -0600 Message-ID: <430384FE.6080105@excelcia.org> References: <4301B090.9040405@excelcia.org> <20050817061913.GA8761@colo.lackof.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org To: Grant Grundler Return-Path: In-reply-to: <20050817061913.GA8761@colo.lackof.org> List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: parisc-linux-bounces@lists.parisc-linux.org Grant Grundler wrote: > If performance on a C160 is that important, my advice is to dump > both boxes and buy any Pentium M (1.x Ghz) laptop :^). But that would > be boring... :^P Boring indeed. :) Actually, my thought is that my little C160 may be simply shedding light on a problem that's more global. The C160 is the slowest PA2.0 machine made. It's one of the few machines where a PA2.0 CPU is in the same speed range as PA1.1 CPUs. What I'm wondering is that if a C160 is performing at the level of a B132L then could perhaps ALL PA2.0 machines be underperforming? It could be just that my C160 is one of the few machines that was slow enough anyway that it raised a red flag. If that's the case and something minor-ish is making everyone's PA2.0 machines underperform, it may be something worth looking into. Now, A doesn't necarily HAVE to follow B here, but I don't think it's a totally unreasonable suspicion. I may be chasing my tail, but at least it's something to start with to help me learn the ropes. Kurt. _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux