🚀 go-pugleaf

"andrew" <andrew@killspam.gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bJBrtJA$H4C9Ew$t@gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk...
: In article <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com>, Hugh <hugh@nospam.com> writes
: >The following is my general finding so far:
: >
: >Special features of Pentium 4 cpu is not generally utilized
: >by gcc-2.95.** which is used for most Linux distributions rpms.
: >Latexing a big document with Zeon Pentium 4 at 1.7GHz (52 sec) is actually
: >even slower than Pentium III running at 700MHz giving 35 sec.
: >
: >On Athlon at 1.6GHz, it gives 16 sec.  The best.
: >
: >Is my understanding for the reason of slow speed with P4 correct?
: >gcc-2.95.  If I do obtain te-latex.src.rpm and then compile it
: >with gcc-3.1, would I get much faster binary under Pentium 4?
: >
: >The problem with Pentium 4 is not just limited with Latex.
: >I in fact hate Pentium 4, because I simply believed in
: >their high SPEC rating, and bought a bunch of Pentium 4 Xeon
: >duals only to find out that the even the Fortran speed
: >(with their Intel compiler) is in fact dismal.
:
:
: I'm not trying to rub salt into your wounds, but anyone thinking of
: buying a P4 should first read the article in the link below and then ask
: themselves if they really want a P4.  Let's just say that the article is
: not very complimentary to the P4 or Intel.
:
: http://www.emulators.com/docs/pentium_1.htm

That was a very interesting article...very eye opening.  I learned a lot.  So
can we surmise that people who buy P4's (in lieu of Athon's, or even PIII's !)
are either clueless dolts buying with the "huddled masses" mentality, or that
Intel's marketing machine is really **that** good?

J.