Some Unix benchmarks for those who are interesed

[Eric Anderson]

On 03/08/07 09:58, Fluffles wrote:
> Eric Anderson wrote:
>> On 03/07/07 23:13, Fluffles wrote:
>>> On what hardware is this? Using any form of geom software RAID?
>>>
>>> The low Per Char results would lead me to believe it's a very slow CPU;
>>> maybe VIA C3 or some old pentium? Modern systems should get 100MB/s+ in
>>> per-char bonnie benchmark, even a Sempron 2600+ 1.6GHz 128KB cache which
>>> costs about $39. Then it might be logical DD gets higher results since
>>> this is more 'easy' to handle by the CPU. The VFS/UFS layer adds
>>> potential for nice performance-increases but it does take it's toll in
>>> the form of cputime overhead. If your CPU is very slow, i can imagine
>>> these optimizations having a detrimental effect instead. Just
>>> guessing here.
>>
>> Before making speculative claims about slow CPU's and putting the VIA
>> C3 in with that pile, please at least refer to what makes you believe
>> that it is an issue.  Comparing the VIA C3 to 'some old pentium' isn't
>> exactly fair or accurate, and inferring it isn't a modern system isn't
>> true either.
> 
> I'm sorry if i offended you. But it is well-known that C3 Nehemiah has a
> much lower IPC than processors from AMD and Intel. For general purpose
> comparisons, i would guess a 400MHz Athlon 64 to outperform the 1GHz C3
> Nehemiah; just guessing here! Not to talk about Core2Duo who has even
> higher IPC.


No offense, I just prefer the fud to be kept off lists - it's 
essentially trolling I suppose.  No doubt the C3 and C7 processors are 
slower than the top of the line Intel and AMD's - that's like comparing 
a Prius with a Porsche.  If you can find a 400MHz Athlon 64, I'd enjoy 
seeing the benchmarks. :)  However, just simple benchmarks for IPC don't 
tell much about a processor.


> Though Nehemiah does have some fancy MPEG/AES hardware acceleration
> stuff built-in, which makes it a suitable platform for a Media Center or
> anything like that. Personally i think a budget AMD processor to be a
> better option; they have the same power consumption under standby mode
> (thanks to Cool'N'Quiet) but can deliver much higher performance when
> needed (such as HighDef 1080p video?).

Well, not actually the same power consumption at all.  Again, do a 
little googling here, and you might find some actual numbers (not just 
reported numbers).


> The bonnie Per Char-benchmark is often bottlenecked by the CPU since it
> requires either a lot of cpu power or a lot of memory activity; both
> which puts demands on the cpu. If i see only 0.5MB in the Per
> Char-benchmark, i would suspect a slow CPU. Slow is a relative term
> though; C3 can be powerful enough for the task you bought it, so i don't
> want to discredit it.


Dunno.  I was merely trying to keep things honest, since what was 
communicated (whether intended or not) was that a C3 isn't modern, and 
is akin to a Pentium, which it isn't.

Eric