-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nick Wiltshire wrote: > Interesting that the AMD64 version of FC5 ran it slower than the i386 version. > > Can anyone explain?
More CPU optimizations being done by GCC? Just a guess really as this is not really my bag. I look forward to trying these test on my Desktop (4400+ X2) and laptop (Turion 1.6 GHz). The old P4s were really slow, clock for clock they would get spanked by regular X86 (aka P3 and AMD). Fortunately netburst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBurst) is now dead. > > On Wednesday 12 July 2006 12:17 pm, Roy Souther wrote: >> I have been running some speed tests on some new systems I have built. I >> ran the same test on my older systems. I don't like the way benchmarking >> programs go off on a tangent about meaningless data and I don't like web >> sites that give biased reviews, so I did my on speed tests. >> >> Here are the results. http://www.silicontao.com/software/speedtests/ >> >> I would very much like to know what kind of results CLUG'ers get from >> running the same test. >> >> Royce Souther >> www.SiliconTao.com >> Let Open Source help your business move beyond. >> >> For security this message is digitally authenticated by GnuPG. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEtUZAwRXgH3rKGfMRAuqdAJ4xd+l7XlkngnxyW9bzEmxKrwjYQACfWk5p NRC3FQXpy2oyTsaC/XPBSWk= =MIH5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
