David Arturo Macias Corona wrote: > > > I see many surprises: > > a) PIV HT 3.6GHz, SMP Kernel. > My hardware for OS/2 tests are AMD Athlon 2200+ 2.0 Ghz 1 Gb RAM > This Athlon never are ahead of an PIV 2.2 GHz, my "old" PIV 3.3 GHz HT > was allways near double speed than Athlon in any test > So something is wrong: results for PIV HT 3.6 Ghz should be better than > Athlon 2200+ at least in half of time > > Or your machine is heavily loaded, or low RAM or something else, but > must be better > No load, 1Gb of ram mostly free.
It is a HP Compaq dc5100 SFF (PM215AV) with a 3.6 GHz PIV HT cpu, I've just checked in the BIOS. It has a 28/2048 Kb L1/L2 cache. It could be that the SMP kernel is not well suited for a HT system, maybe it really needs a multicore/multicpu system. I don't know, but the system doesn't seem to be slow or sluggish in any way. > b) A very big difference between Harbour and xHarbour in both ST and MT > > c) A very big difference between ST and MT in xHarbour > See my other answer to Przemyslaw. > > As I have xHarbour MT under OS/2 (yes, Maurilio told me how to build it) > I made same tests. xHarbour around 14 August 2008 > > speedtst.prg > > Harbour > ======= > ST > total application time: 47.13 > total real time: 47.14 > MT > total application time: 51.98 > total real time: 51.98 > > xHarbour > ======== > ST > total application time: 71.52 > total real time: 71.52 > MT > total application time: 119.68 > total real time: 119.69 > > At first sight xHarbour ST is nearly twice as slow as Harbour ST and xHarbour MT is more than twice slow than Harbour. Best regards. Maurilio. -- __________ | | | |__| Maurilio Longo |_|_|_|____| farmaconsult s.r.l. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
