Zhang Weiwu wrote:
> Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>> Zhang Weiwu wrote:
>>> Hello. After I get an old U5 box, I decide to replace my desktop
>>> computer with another UltraSparc. My desktop computer is Pentium 1G /
>>> 256MB memory / ATA100 IDE box.
>>> What UltraSparc (with how many of what CPU) has similiar average
>>> desktop performance as my Pentium box? I usually only browsing
>>> around, use openoffice and gimp a little, vim as editor and doesn't
>>> use huge IDE like eclipse. What's your suggestion?
>> This is just a guess, but an Ultra 2 with dual 300s or 400s is
>> probably going to be pretty close in performance.
> A small test showed very disapointing result. (This is not a desktop
> performace test, only I play with it)
> I tried to compare my Ultra 5 ( 333MHz single CPU / ATA66 IDE / 256 MB )
> with Celeron 600 MHz box ( ATA 66, 256MB memory). My test is to
> calculate the complecity of Linux kernel code.
> (command line: # sloccount /usr/src/linux-sparc-2.4.27/ )
> On U5 it takes325 seconds, on Celeron it takes 257 seconds. They both
> take almost same amount of kernel time, but U5 takes 210 seconds user
> time, while Celeron only takes 76 seconds.
> To perform this task, Celeron used 79% of total time compare to U5. So I
> think perhaps U5 does not perform better than Celeron 500MHz. This way,
> I can hardly expect dual 300MHz would overperform Pentium 1G, especially
> dual CPU (IMHO) does not help much with desktop thanks to that only a
> few desktop applications use more than one process...
> Perhaps I am wrong in this small test?
Yes, a U2 is *not* a U5. The U5 and U10 were probably the crappiest Ultra
machines that Sun put out. Also, the test was a little one-sided since the
Celeron had almost twice the speed and an IDE chipset with working DMA :) A
2x300 U2 would "mop the floor" with the Celeron in that test.
Gentoo Linux Developer
email@example.com mailing list