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]