Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance

From: J.A. Magallon (
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 15:56:55 EST

On 2002.12.12 Mark Mielke wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 10:42:56AM +0100, Terje Eggestad wrote:
>> On ons, 2002-12-11 at 19:50, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> > Terje Eggestad wrote:
>> > > PS: rdtsc on P4 is also painfully slow!!!
>> > Now that's just braindead...
>> It takes about 11 cycles on athlon, 34 on PII, and a whooping 84 on P4.
>> For a simple op like that, even 11 is a lot... Really makes you wonder.
>Some of this discussion is a little bit unfair. My understanding of what
>Intel has done with the P4, is create an architecture that allows for
>higher clock rates. Sure the P4 might take 84, vs PII 34, but how many
>PII 2.4 Ghz machines have you ever seen on the market?
>Certainly, some of their decisions seem to be a little odd on the surface.
>That doesn't mean the situation is black and white.

No. The situation is just black. Each day Intel processors are a bigger
pile of crap and less intelligent, but MHz compensate for the average
office user. Think of what could a P4 do if the same effort put on
Hz was put on getting cheap a cache of 4Mb or 8Mb like MIPSes have. Or
closer, 1Mb like G4s.
If syscalls take 300% time but processor is also 300% faster 'nobody

J.A. Magallon <>      \                 Software is like sex:                         \           It's better when it's free
Mandrake Linux release 9.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.4.20-jam1 (gcc 3.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2-4mdk))
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:26 EST