On Friday 28 October 2005 12.57, David Jander wrote: > They are just integers with fixed start values. These are in the loop, so > it's not an empty loop and hopefully the compiler won't out-optimize it so > easily (that is of course without specifying any optimization flags). > Please don't tell me it's a lousy benchmark, because I already know that! > Be it as lousy as it is, I shouldn't get _those_ results IMHO. > > I have downloaded nbench (hopefully a more serious benchmark for raw > computing power), and the results are as follows (I deliberately excluded > tests that don't make sense (ie. use FP)): > > Kernel 2.4.25: > > TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index > > : : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233* > > --------------------:------------------:-------------:------------ > NUMERIC SORT : 30.438 : 0.78 : 0.26 > STRING SORT : 1.5842 : 0.71 : 0.11 > BITFIELD : 7.9506e+06 : 1.36 : 0.28 > FP EMULATION : 3.258 : 1.56 : 0.36 > IDEA : 108.89 : 1.67 : 0.49 > > Kernel 2.6.14-r5: > > TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index > > : : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233* > > --------------------:------------------:-------------:------------ > NUMERIC SORT : 21.042 : 0.54 : 0.18 > STRING SORT : 0.88215 : 0.39 : 0.06 > BITFIELD : 6.0979e+06 : 1.05 : 0.22 > FP EMULATION : 1.6453 : 0.79 : 0.18 > IDEA : 110.25 : 1.69 : 0.50 > >
What about the Pentium 90 and AMD K6? Are those values actual measured results? By you? If not why do THEY differ between the kernel versions? Is this a MPC8xx problem - can it be verified on a x86? /RogerL
