It worked now, thanks!

Here are the results, although I for one don't understand anything here.
I wasn't sure how to run the benchmarks so I ran it once for 2201000 and
once for 2200000.


2201000:

BYTEmark* Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (10/95)
Index-split by Andrew D. Balsa (11/97)
Linux/Unix* port by Uwe F. Mayer (12/96,11/97)

TEST                : Iterations/sec.  : Old Index   : New Index
                    :                  : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
NUMERIC SORT        :          1533.6  :      39.33  :      12.92
STRING SORT         :           991.8  :     443.16  :      68.59
BITFIELD            :      4.7385e+08  :      81.28  :      16.98
FP EMULATION        :          504.84  :     242.25  :      55.90
FOURIER             :           22431  :      25.51  :      14.33
ASSIGNMENT          :          49.221  :     187.29  :      48.58
IDEA                :          9584.3  :     146.59  :      43.52
HUFFMAN             :          4348.5  :     120.58  :      38.51
NEURAL NET          :            81.8  :     131.41  :      55.27
LU DECOMPOSITION    :          2360.6  :     122.29  :      88.31
==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS==========================
INTEGER INDEX       : 141.507
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 74.284
Baseline (MSDOS*)   : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
==============================LINUX DATA BELOW===============================
CPU                 : 8 CPU GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2670QM CPU @ 
2.20GHz 2201MHz
L2 Cache            : 6144 KB
OS                  : Linux 3.8.0-3-generic
C compiler          : gcc version 4.7.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-20ubuntu1) 
libc                : libc-2.17.so
MEMORY INDEX        : 38.389
INTEGER INDEX       : 33.167
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 41.201
Baseline (LINUX)    : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
* Trademarks are property of their respective holder.



2200000:

BYTEmark* Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (10/95)
Index-split by Andrew D. Balsa (11/97)
Linux/Unix* port by Uwe F. Mayer (12/96,11/97)

TEST                : Iterations/sec.  : Old Index   : New Index
                    :                  : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
NUMERIC SORT        :          1149.6  :      29.48  :       9.68
STRING SORT         :          734.24  :     328.08  :      50.78
BITFIELD            :      3.5834e+08  :      61.47  :      12.84
FP EMULATION        :          373.76  :     179.35  :      41.38
FOURIER             :           16813  :      19.12  :      10.74
ASSIGNMENT          :           36.85  :     140.22  :      36.37
IDEA                :          7122.3  :     108.93  :      32.34
HUFFMAN             :          3246.9  :      90.04  :      28.75
NEURAL NET          :          60.512  :      97.21  :      40.89
LU DECOMPOSITION    :          1757.9  :      91.07  :      65.76
==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS==========================
INTEGER INDEX       : 105.622
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 55.315
Baseline (MSDOS*)   : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
==============================LINUX DATA BELOW===============================
CPU                 : 8 CPU GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2670QM CPU @ 
2.20GHz 2200MHz
L2 Cache            : 6144 KB
OS                  : Linux 3.8.0-3-generic
C compiler          : gcc version 4.7.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-20ubuntu1) 
libc                : libc-2.17.so
MEMORY INDEX        : 28.730
INTEGER INDEX       : 24.707
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 30.680
Baseline (LINUX)    : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
* Trademarks are property of their respective holder.



The results look pretty weird. The difference between 2201000 and
2200000 is a lot bigger than 2200000 and 2000000. Here are the results
for 2000000:

BYTEmark* Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (10/95)
Index-split by Andrew D. Balsa (11/97)
Linux/Unix* port by Uwe F. Mayer (12/96,11/97)

TEST                : Iterations/sec.  : Old Index   : New Index
                    :                  : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
NUMERIC SORT        :          1057.4  :      27.12  :       8.91
STRING SORT         :          668.64  :     298.77  :      46.24
BITFIELD            :      3.2551e+08  :      55.84  :      11.66
FP EMULATION        :          345.76  :     165.91  :      38.28
FOURIER             :           15323  :      17.43  :       9.79
ASSIGNMENT          :          33.667  :     128.11  :      33.23
IDEA                :          6497.4  :      99.38  :      29.51
HUFFMAN             :          2954.1  :      81.92  :      26.16
NEURAL NET          :          55.076  :      88.48  :      37.22
LU DECOMPOSITION    :          1596.6  :      82.71  :      59.73
==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS==========================
INTEGER INDEX       : 96.560
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 50.333
Baseline (MSDOS*)   : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
==============================LINUX DATA BELOW===============================
CPU                 : 8 CPU GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2670QM CPU @ 
2.20GHz 2000MHz
L2 Cache            : 6144 KB
OS                  : Linux 3.8.0-3-generic
C compiler          : gcc version 4.7.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-20ubuntu1) 
libc                : libc-2.17.so
MEMORY INDEX        : 26.169
INTEGER INDEX       : 22.649
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 27.917
Baseline (LINUX)    : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
* Trademarks are property of their respective holder.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1110429

Title:
  indicator-cpufreq 0.2-0ubuntu1: 2.20 frequency shows up twice [raring]

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/indicator-cpufreq/+bug/1110429/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to