1. Ping Rob - Go on then
- Posted by petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk Jun 14, 2002
- 379 views
DQpJIGtub3cgeW91IGtub3csDQoNCkkga25vdyB5b3UncmUgZHlpbmcgdG8gdGVsbCwNCg0KZ28g b24gdGhlbiwNCg0KaG93IG1hbnkgc2lldmVzIG9uIHRoZSBuZXcgcDQ/DQoNCg0K
2. Re: Ping Rob - Go on then
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Jun 14, 2002
- 367 views
Pete Lomax writes: > I know you know, > I know you're dying to tell, > go on then, > how many sieves on the new p4? I found it's not that easy to get a consistent time on XP, but here goes: On my new P4 1.8 GHz, 512K cache machine interpreted sieve using ex: 29819.5 Translated sieve with Watcom: 92726.7 On my older 350 MHz, 512K cache machine I get: interpreted sieve using ex: 6006.7 Translated sieve with Watcom: 21229.2 interpreted P4 is faster by 4.96x translated/compiled, P4 is faster by 4.37x 1800/350 = 5.14x so the P4 is not living up to what you'd expect based on MHz alone. I suppose there could be some cache misses and the cache memory is not 5x faster. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
3. Re: Ping Rob - Go on then
- Posted by petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk Jun 14, 2002
- 382 views
DQpTaHVja3MuIGJldHdlZW4gNC4zNyBhbmQgNC45NnggZmFzdGVyLCBub3QgNS4xNHgNCg0KQmV0 IHlvdSdyZSBndXR0ZWQuDQoNCg==