Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!news1.best.com!shellx.best.com!shellx.best.com!not-for-mail From: rcarter@shellx.best.com (Russell Carter) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Pentium Pro support Date: 13 Nov 1995 16:27:33 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications Lines: 24 Message-ID: <488npl$4ge@shellx.best.com> References: <46n3u4$256@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <DHrECs.J3E@ritz.mordor.com> <30A23B7A.794BDF32@FreeBSD.org> <483ue4$po@tzlink.j51.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shellx.best.com In article <483ue4$po@tzlink.j51.com>, Louis Epstein <lepslog@j51.com> wrote: >Jordan K. Hubbard (jkh@FreeBSD.org) wrote: >: I'm afraid you'll just have to wait and find out.. :-) >: [Intel is being secretive about the numbers still] > >Intel has announced SPECmark numbers for the P6,so what's the fuss? > >(If the P6 were no faster than the P5,they'd be in BIG trouble!) > Well the interesting thing is the SPEC marks for the P5-133, which are used to compare to the P6, are apparently taken on a non-pipelined burst SRAM system. The P6 then looks pretty good, especially the 200MHz ratings. On the other hand, a pipelined burst SRAM system is used for the Windows P5-133 benchmarks, which of course makes it look pretty good compared to older processors (especially those pesky 486s...). My guess is that if they really aren't using pipelined burst SRAM in those SPEC rated 133 marks, you can do 15-20% better. And then the P6 doesn't look so hot, at least not the 150MHz processor. Regards, Russell rcarter@geli.com http://www.geli.com