| 1 |
Andrew Gaffney wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Yes, a U2 is *not* a U5. The U5 and U10 were probably the crappiest |
| 5 |
> Ultra machines that Sun put out. Also, the test was a little one-sided |
| 6 |
> since the Celeron had almost twice the speed and an IDE chipset with |
| 7 |
> working DMA :) A 2x300 U2 would "mop the floor" with the Celeron in |
| 8 |
> that test. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
Okay, so I am wrong: is it true that U5 and U10 are worse than U2 when |
| 11 |
equiped with 300~400 CPU? |
| 12 |
Another question I had for a long time: does SMP really makes sense on |
| 13 |
desktop, browsing and word processing? I don't expect dual CPU average |
| 14 |
performance 200% of single CPU, I don't even expect 120% performance, I |
| 15 |
thought not needed for multi-process for desktops? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
gentoo-sparc@g.o mailing list |
Archives