Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:31:14 +0100
From: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Cc: Nick Kurshev <nickols_k AT mail DOT ru>
Subject: Re: Re: Probably pgcc-2.95.2.1 does not optimized propertly?
Message-ID: <20010220233114.A18570@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com, Nick Kurshev <nickols_k AT mail DOT ru>
References: <E14VHDU-00009a-00 AT mx7 DOT port DOT ru> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0102202141440 DOT 3407-100000 AT s-inf-pc24 DOT oulu DOT fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102202141440.3407-100000@s-inf-pc24.oulu.fi>; from tuukkat@s-inf-pc24.oulu.fi on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:58:44PM +0200
X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.4.1 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version 2.95.2.1 19991024 (release)) 
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:58:44PM +0200, Tuukka Toivonen <tuukkat AT s-inf-pc24 DOT oulu DOT fi> wrote:
> Just for your amusement, I made some tests using my own timing code (with
> rdtsc and rdpmc) too. The CPU is AMD Athlon 800 MHz (cool CPU but not too
> good documentation).

Indeed, the Athlon performs much better than the K6. AMD did a perfect
job, first the K5 (bad, but already using u-ops), then the K6 (_quite_
competitive, if you don't look at the price (which makes it even better))
and lastly the Athlon, which fixed most if not all the deisng flaws of the
K6.


-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |