> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Kirkwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 January 2007 23:49 > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Symlinking /usr/portage/distfiles > > > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:58, Alan McKinnon > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] > > Symlinking /usr/portage/distfiles': > >> On Wednesday 31 January 2007, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: > >>> Furthermore Pentium 4 is a joke (it performs horribly). A 2 GHz > >>> (Dothan I presume) Pentium-M should be faster than a 2,8 > GHz Pentium > >>> 4. My timing is for an 1,6 GHz (Banias) Pentium-M btw. > >> This sounds odd, but I'm not a cpu expert so can't really > comment. Care > >> to elaborate on why the P4 performs so horribly? > > > > The instruction pipeline is very long, the CPU <-> RAM > bandwith is quite > > small, and the pipeline has to be emptied any time the > branch predictor is > > wrong. While the pipeline fills, the CPU works but no results are > > visible. > > > > Hz has never been a complete trump of other issues affecting CPU > > performance, but is always a factor to consider. (Among > CPUs that are > > otherwise identical, higher Hz wins.) > > > > Also Pentium-M has a lower latency L2 cache than P-4. With respect to > pipeline lengths I was curious to see what they actually > were: P-4 has > 20 stages, P-M has.. err... < 20 stages (Intel won't say exactly!). > > I found this an interesting read for those of you interested in this: > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2342&p=1 > > Cheers > > Mark
At the risk of pulling this topic a little more off-topic - the P-M vs P-4 is an interesting case of a Pentium 3 chipset with a die shrink outperforming a P-4. The Intel Core (2) Solo/Duo CPUs are based on the Pentium M as well. Netburst is pretty much dead afaik. -- djn Disclaimer: I represent no-one else in my emails to this list. Use any advice given at your own risk. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
