🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <lm9jpsINNlms@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, by ram@shukra.Eng.Sun.COM (Renu Raman):
> In article <18471@autodesk.COM> marc@autodesk.com writes:
>>
>>In article 51917@seismo.CSS.GOV, dsc@seismo.CSS.GOV (taste is the enemy 
>>
>>>Model	    SPECint92	SPECfp92	MIPS	MFLOPS	Cache*	Contexts
>>>-----	    ---------	--------	----	------	------	--------
>>>IPX	    21.8	21.5		28.5	4.2	64	8
>>>2	    21.8	22.8		28.5	4.2	64	16
>>>Classic    26.4	21.0		59.1	4.6	6	64
>>>LX	    26.4	21.0		59.1	4.6	6	64
>>>
>>>* in KBs - cache is unified unless marked as data/instruction.
>>
>>Take careful note of the cache size on the Classic/LX.  One thing that 
>>has been become obvious to us here is that the IPX and SS2 perform
>>significantly better (in some case 2 or 3 times) on large programs with
>>poor cache locality.  Benchmarks don't always tell the whole story...
> 
> 
>  I suppose you meant 'good cache locality' - because on programs that
>  have 'poor cache locality' a.k.a cache thrashers - the LX/Classic
>  will perform better than the IPX and SS2 - for the simple reason that
>  the memory access latency is far better - (about 7-9 cycles vs 20).
> 
>  I have seen a number of cases where This teeny machines outperform 
>  a number of bigger machines when the programs are memory bound.
>

If anyone has access to both an ss2 & classic with local hd, I'd like
to see wall time for compiling a stage3 gcc or emacs.
larry-