On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:10:48PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > On Wed Jan 23 10:49:47 EST 2013, quans...@quanstro.net wrote: > > > Interesting results, thank you! > > > The difference between the Pi and the Sheeva is quite huge, > > > I wasn't excepting such difference. This seems to confirm my > > > initial thoughts regarding the Atom perfs. > > > > that's just for floating point, which the sheeva doesn't have. > > the newer model from the same line does have floating point: > > > > http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/p-58-mirabox-development-kit.aspx > > richard, thanks for the floating point. this is good stuff. > this is better than 100x faster: > > ; >/dev/null time factor 281476419553081 > 146.60u 0.01s 148.24r factor 281476419553081 > ; >/dev/null time /sys/src/cmd/5.factor 281476419553081 > 1.20u 0.01s 1.22r /sys/src/cmd/5.factor 281476419553081
Umh how does 'factor' relate to a FPU? I don't have a plan9 running there, but the gnu 'factor' runs in 2.2s in a raspberrypi, and 0.05s in a sheevaplug, here. > (burncycles calculates the digits of pi using a taylor series > expansion. it uses all the tricks in the book to generate as > few bits of the result per cycle possible, without being verbose, > obtuse, or off task. obviously, it was an accident. > the very fast machines have the advantage of non-emulated > vlongs, running amd64 kernels) What are these emulated vlongs? Would that mean an atom computer would run relevantly faster i686 code over x86_64 code? Regards, Lluís.
