[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: ppc vs. i386

> > > ive found my G3/400 to be about on par with my celery 466, the only
> > > thing that seems slower on ppc to me is the compiler, and the
> > > framebuffer (compared to VGA textmode which is not fair ;-))
> > 
> > That's about what I see (scaling the performance to equal CPU clock).
> Where are you guys getting this?  Just based on observation?  Just for
> the record, my upgraded G3/350 appears (visually) much faster than
> my PII/366.  Both machines use XFree86 4.0, kernel 2.4+, and the
> woody packages.

I don't care about how a system 'feels', or about X performance. What I
run on the machines in the lab (and on my Lombard) is a scientific
software package for restrained molecular dynamics. The RAM requirements
are modest (with under a thousand atoms) and disk I/O isn't that much
I've got a few other apps that are more integer bound, I'll need to get
some test data to get measurable run times before I can post any hard

My ranking based on the lab machines, setting the G3 to a relative
performance of 1.0, and scaling all others to the same CPU clock speed:

Pentium II/III		1.14
Celeron			1.07
G3			1.0
AMD K6			0.68-0.74 (three identical K6 in identical boards)
Cyrix MII		0.60

The first two are from dual processor SMP boxes so it's possible that
single processor ones would be a bit slower. This proves nothing (other
than you can find both faster and slower Intel processors to compare


Reply to: