rwessel (robertwessel@yahoo.com) on 12/17/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) on 12/16/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Anyway, here is the source
>>
>>http://tams-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/lehre/2001ss/proseminar/mikroprozessoren/papers/pentium-pro-performance.pdf
>>
>>which is horribly formatted, but shows that 1.2 - 1.7 number
>>(average: 1.35). That's the PPro. Here is, for comparison,
>>a rather interesting POWER comparison with a more modern
>>Intel CPU (Woodcrest), which shows very close to 1.0:
>>
>>http://lca.ece.utexas.edu/pubs/spec09_ciji.pdf
>>
>>>
>>
>>which is also interesting because their pathlengths are
>>actually very comparable with POWER. It is possible (in
>>fact likely) that at least part of that is simply
>>differences in compilers too, of course.
>>
>>That other paper is also readable, because its whitespace
>>hasn't been destroyed by some horrible pdf import thing
>>(or whatever happened to the PPro paper - maybe somebody
>>can find a better version of that).
>
>
>Hmmm... You may have an issue with the PDF viewer you're using, perhaps a missing
>or poorly implemented font. Both papers appear well formatted with Acrobat 9 (the
>second using somewhat oddly large margins).
>
>It looks like the first document may not have used one of the standard fonts, if
>I try to modify it, Acrobat tries to switch to a Time Roman font since the original is not available).
>

The pdf just hasn't any fonts embedded and relies locally installed ones on your system.
On my distribution the gpl'd urw-fonts package provides them all.