From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Zick" Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] B132L outperforms C160 - 64-bit userland needed? Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:00:29 -0500 Message-ID: <200508160800.29307.mszick@morethan.org> References: <4301B090.9040405@excelcia.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" To: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <4301B090.9040405@excelcia.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 On Tue August 16 2005 04:23, Kurt Fitzner wrote: > In the interim until I can source an ISA/EISA fast ethernet card, I've > been playing with my new C160. I decided to benchmark it and compare it > to my B132L. To my surprise, when it came to integer operations, the > B132L outperforms the C160! > > I benchmarked using nbench, which is a Linux/Unix port of Byte > magazine's ByteMark. Full results from both machines are at the end of > this post. > > Both machines were benchmarked using identical binaries compiled with: > -O3 -march=1.1 -mschedule=7300 -mfast-indirect-calls -mgas > > Thinking that the scheduling and architecture might be slowing down the > C160, I recompiled it with: > -O3 -march=2.0 -mschedule=8000 -mfast-indirect-calls -mgas > > When that produced even worse results, I tried -march=2.0 vs 1.1 and > -mschedule=8000 vs 7300 seperately. Each one alone slows down the > benchmark and the effect is addititive. It seems that in Linux, right > now at least, compiling with -march=2.0 or -mschedule=8000 is a Bad Thing. > It would be interesting to see if this also holds with a newer GCC. (3.4, 4.0, 4.1) > > If you look at the individual results, in most areas the C160 performs > about 20% better than the B132. It's just that in a few areas, the C160 > has absolutely dismal performance. Numeric sorting and the assignment > algorithm were both notably slower on the C160. > > With a clock speed 20% faster, I must admit that the C160's poor showing > was a dissappointment. I'm wondering if this is because there isn't a > 64-bit userland yet. Is stepping down to 32-bit on the C160 hurting its > performance that badly? > Try the same version kernel on both machines - you might just be seeing the difference between 2.6.8 and 2.6.10. (or 32bit and 64bit kernels). Also, what compiler was used to build the kernel. Mike > I suppose (assuming I'm correct about the reason for the performance > drop) my options are to wait for 64-bit userland or to put HPUX on it. > > Is there any way which someone can help the 64-bit userland effort who > is quite strong in system-level programming in general though weak in > Linux kernel programming specifically? Is there a project web site for > this effort? > > Kurt > > > Phong (C160): > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index > : : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233* > --------------------:------------------:-------------:------------ > NUMERIC SORT : 37.51 : 0.96 : 0.32 > STRING SORT : 5.0486 : 2.26 : 0.35 > BITFIELD : 1.6052e+07 : 2.75 : 0.58 > FP EMULATION : 8.4215 : 4.04 : 0.93 > FOURIER : 1102.1 : 1.25 : 0.70 > ASSIGNMENT : 0.59547 : 2.27 : 0.59 > IDEA : 115.34 : 1.76 : 0.52 > HUFFMAN : 89.382 : 2.48 : 0.79 > NEURAL NET : 1.6905 : 2.72 : 1.14 > LU DECOMPOSITION : 41.254 : 2.14 : 1.54 > =======================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS======================= > INTEGER INDEX : 2.187 > FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 1.938 > Baseline: MSDOS P90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0 > ===========================LINUX DATA BELOW============================ > CPU : Raven U 160 (9000/780/C160) 160MHz > L2 Cache : 512 KB (WB, 0-way associative) > OS : Linux 2.6.10-pa11-phong-3 > C compiler : gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13) > libc : ld-2.3.2.so > MEMORY INDEX : 0.491 > INTEGER INDEX : 0.591 > FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 1.075 > Baseline: Linux AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38 > ======================================================================= > > > Megabyte (B132L): > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index > : : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233* > --------------------:------------------:-------------:------------ > NUMERIC SORT : 60.695 : 1.56 : 0.51 > STRING SORT : 3.3905 : 1.51 : 0.23 > BITFIELD : 1.1081e+07 : 1.90 : 0.40 > FP EMULATION : 6.0832 : 2.92 : 0.67 > FOURIER : 876.58 : 1.00 : 0.56 > ASSIGNMENT : 0.80283 : 3.05 : 0.79 > IDEA : 150.04 : 2.29 : 0.68 > HUFFMAN : 76.017 : 2.11 : 0.67 > NEURAL NET : 1.1334 : 1.82 : 0.77 > LU DECOMPOSITION : 41.733 : 2.16 : 1.56 > =======================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS======================= > INTEGER INDEX : 2.121 > FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 1.577 > Baseline: MSDOS P90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0 > ===========================LINUX DATA BELOW============================ > CPU : Merlin L2 132 (9000/778/B132L) 132MHz > Cache : 64 KB (WB, 0-way associative) > OS : Linux 2.6.8.1-pa11-megabyte-20050720 > C compiler : gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13) > libc : ld-2.3.2.so > MEMORY INDEX : 0.419 > INTEGER INDEX : 0.630 > FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 0.875 > Baseline: Linux AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38 > ======================================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > parisc-linux mailing list > parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org > http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux > > _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux