From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HCPIj-00027s-Gv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:55:41 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l0VNsUEI021297; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:54:30 GMT Received: from smtp4.clear.net.nz (smtp4.clear.net.nz [203.97.37.64]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0VNnBPF015282 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:49:12 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.11] (121-72-66-26.dsl.telstraclear.net [121.72.66.26]) by smtp4.clear.net.nz (CLEAR Net Mail) with ESMTP id <0JCR009Q8BHTSP10@smtp4.clear.net.nz> for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:49:05 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:49:01 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Symlinking /usr/portage/distfiles In-reply-to: <200701311313.42668.bss03@volumehost.net> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <45C12AED.2040109@paradise.net.nz> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed References: <200701311438.34145.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> <200701311758.22588.alan@linuxholdings.co.za> <200701311313.42668.bss03@volumehost.net> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061227) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id l0VNsUEV021297 X-Archives-Salt: 32e0cfc2-dd05-4fad-b283-616cd6cf5752 X-Archives-Hash: b59d4a360c081442944d1a166da0b1d4 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:58, Alan McKinnon=20 > wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user]=20 > Symlinking /usr/portage/distfiles': >> On Wednesday 31 January 2007, Bo =D8rsted Andresen wrote: >>> Furthermore Pentium 4 is a joke (it performs horribly). A 2 GHz >>> (Dothan I presume) Pentium-M should be faster than a 2,8 GHz Pentium >>> 4. My timing is for an 1,6 GHz (Banias) Pentium-M btw. >> This sounds odd, but I'm not a cpu expert so can't really comment. Car= e >> to elaborate on why the P4 performs so horribly? >=20 > The instruction pipeline is very long, the CPU <-> RAM bandwith is quit= e=20 > small, and the pipeline has to be emptied any time the branch predictor= is=20 > wrong. While the pipeline fills, the CPU works but no results are=20 > visible. >=20 > Hz has never been a complete trump of other issues affecting CPU=20 > performance, but is always a factor to consider. (Among CPUs that are=20 > otherwise identical, higher Hz wins.) >=20 Also Pentium-M has a lower latency L2 cache than P-4. With respect to=20 pipeline lengths I was curious to see what they actually were: P-4 has=20 20 stages, P-M has.. err... < 20 stages (Intel won't say exactly!). I found this an interesting read for those of you interested in this: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3D2342&p=3D1 Cheers Mark --=20 gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list