By: Per Hesselgren (grabb1948.delete@this.passagen.se), February 4, 2013 4:42 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 4, 2013 2:27 am wrote:
> Patrick Chase (patrickjchase.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 3, 2013 2:27 pm wrote:
> >
> > With that said, you gave me plenty of evidence yourself. R10K was >50% bigger for a 10% advantage
> > in integer and a 50% advantage in FP.
>
> 50% in FP is for Spec95, I assume.
> In Spec2k the difference was ALOT bigger - 2.4x.
> I wonder why Spec2k and spec95 produce so different pictures?
>
> R14K 500MHz 463
> Pentium III 500 MHz 193
>
> R14K specfp2k/Hz is not just better than P6, but x1.36 higher than much more advanced Intel Dothan
> Pentium M 1600 MHz 1082
>
>
Going from SPEC89->92->95->2000->2006 the workload is gets bigger and cache is growing the same way. Normally fast cache is most important for integer and large cache is most important for floating point. It would of course be interesting to see some ARM alternatives for example with 512 and 1024 L2 cache
> Patrick Chase (patrickjchase.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 3, 2013 2:27 pm wrote:
> >
> > With that said, you gave me plenty of evidence yourself. R10K was >50% bigger for a 10% advantage
> > in integer and a 50% advantage in FP.
>
> 50% in FP is for Spec95, I assume.
> In Spec2k the difference was ALOT bigger - 2.4x.
> I wonder why Spec2k and spec95 produce so different pictures?
>
> R14K 500MHz 463
> Pentium III 500 MHz 193
>
> R14K specfp2k/Hz is not just better than P6, but x1.36 higher than much more advanced Intel Dothan
> Pentium M 1600 MHz 1082
>
>
Going from SPEC89->92->95->2000->2006 the workload is gets bigger and cache is growing the same way. Normally fast cache is most important for integer and large cache is most important for floating point. It would of course be interesting to see some ARM alternatives for example with 512 and 1024 L2 cache
