Maxim Khitrov wrote:
On 9/14/07, Aryeh Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/14/07, Maxim Khitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm about to purchase a new system for myself. It will dual-boot
Windows XP, which will be primarily used for gaming, and FreeBSD 7.0
for everything else. I wanted to ask if the new ULE scheduler will
benefit from having four cores on the CPU, meaning that if I have many
concurrent tasks, is it able to efficiently spread the load over all
available cores?

My choices for CPU are either the dual-core E6850 or quad-core Q6600.
The latter has lower FSB (1066 vs 1333) and frequency (2.4 vs 3.0),
but I'm trying to decide if the addition of two extra cores will bring
about noticeable improvements. There are also some issues for gaming,
but let's ignore those for a moment. Which CPU would benefit FreeBSD
7.0 the most, which one would you pick?

- Max
There seems to be some general issues with 7 and e6850/q6600 (I don't know
if these are due to the processor the chip set or what):

      * Doesn't reconize both SATA and PATA drives at the same time
      * X ( 7.3) has a hard time using brand specific drivers for PCI-E
cards (for example I am using vesa to drive a nVidia and I get the full
advertised resolution but I also have screen "blinks" see FreeBSD-x11
mailing list for details on all this)
      * Some ports are broken in 7 (in my case all native Java compilers and
the hp branded printing subsystem)

Could that have something to do with your motherboard? I plan on
getting Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6, will likely order all the parts this
Monday or Tuesday. My choice is still between those two CPUs even if
FreeBSD has some issues with them right now. Hopefully it will be
fixed before 7-RELEASE is made.

I could still use some advice on which CPU would be better assuming
everything works as it should. I'm leaning more towards Q6600, since I
could overclock it a bit and essentially get 2 extra cores for free.
The main question is still whether ULE will take full advantage of the
available processing power and offset the negative impact of lower

On Windows tests it's pretty clear that things like video editing and
3D rendering greatly benefit from four cores, but of course it's
difficult to locate similar tests run on other operating systems.

In general, if you are running a multi-process or multi-threaded workload, FreeBSD 7 will be able to make good use of 8 CPU cores.

Over the past 2 years we have done extensive benchmarking and optimizations that have resulted in *huge* performance improvements on many common workloads on 8-core systems. FreeBSD 7 is now regularly outperforming Linux on the workloads we have compared. In the near future we will be widening our scope to 16 core systems as well as investigating more benchmarks as we find them.

On the other hand, if you come up with a workload that does not perform well on 7, we want to hear about it so we can fix that bug :)


_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to