> > Yes, some details were left out of CPU performance increases. The same was > > done for memory performance increases though. We have been discussing > > memory bandwidth as memory performance, completely leaving out memory > > latency, which has also improved tremendously. > > Pardon me, but I haven't seen this wonderful improvement. > > I benchmarked several machines a while back: > - a P200 with a TX chipset board and EDO DRAM > - a P2-266 with an LX chipset and PC-66 SDRAM > - a K6-III/550 with a Via MVP3 chipset and PC-100 SDRAM > > The P200 pulled off about 75MBytes/sec; the P2-266 pulled off about 55 MBytes/sec; the K6-III/550 pulled off about 100MBytes/sec. All of this was done under Linux; tests were performed with memtest86 (? it's been a while, basically though they were not performed under any operating system other than that which was on the floppy). > > This doesn't support your conclusions here. I would hazard a guess that memory performance there had more to do with the chipset involved than superior memory technology.
You stopped your measurements with a processor that is around 5 years old. It is no wonder you got such low results. Now compare your EDO ram results, from about 5 years ago, to my current results: Pentium 4 2.4GHz, 400MHz FSB, i850 chipset with RDRAM: L1 cache: 19730MB/s, L2 cache: 16833MB/s, Memory: 1425MB/s My results are 19 times better than your results on the P200 with EDO RAM. This basically proves my case here. -Raystonn _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
