On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:

> The real news is not 586 vs. 686;
> The real story is both vs. 386.
> Otherwise, Diego would not write his message.
> And I would not respond.
> 
> And please don't argue with me (Ira - you too);
> I responded to Diego.
> I assume that his results are accurate.
> 
> And in any case, he didn't compare two different computers with
> different disks/RAM/etc.;
> He compared 386 performance with 586/686, ON THE SAME COMPUTER.
> So there is no excuse for getting better results with the 386
> compilation.
> It's not the disk/RAM/etc.;
> It's the CPU, stupid!;-)
> 
> If his results areright (Ira, please notice the word "if" and similar
> words that were used in my previous message), then it means that no
> progress has been achieved in the microprocessor industry for 15 years,
> except for more and more Hertz's.

There is no connection between your premises and your conclusions.

The right conclusions from the given facts:
Maybe the 586/686 optimizations in the gcc version used are not as good
as some people think they are.
The Athlon is optimized to run "386 optimized" code.

If you compare a 386 and an Athlon, it will be easy to see that the 386
does about one op in 4 cycles, while the Athlon does 3 ops per cycle
(and sometimes more).



-- 
Matan Ziv-Av.                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]



=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to