Re: Alpha 500 vs Bi Ppro.

Tuomas Heino (
Fri, 16 May 1997 19:02:47 +0300 (EET DST)

On Thu, 15 May 1997, Yann DUPONT wrote:

> Load :
> We compiled bogomips (bogo-1.2), and launched 256 in the same time,
> then launched xdvi & ghostscript, and compilations in the same time .
> -> load jump over 100 on the 2 stations, but the system is still
> responsive on the Bip & on the Alpha. With a load of 100 !!! I think
> it's really good (there wasn't disk activities at this time)
> compilations time are in the same range (the bip is still winner)
> The bip also finish the huge bogomips test a little before the alpha.
> When the load is at it's MAX, trying to refresh xdvi (with a
> postscript in it) is quite fast & smooth on the ppro, much slower &
> less smooth (that is, refresh is done little bit by little bit)
> on the ALPHA...
> Also tried the Unix Byte benchmark. The results are better on the
> Alpha on most cases (2x to 10x !!!! improvement).
> But in real use, This win seems not to be perceptible...

You used X during some of the benchmark? I've heard that X is/was a
bottleneck on alphas but I'm not sure if that's still the case...
(ddt desided not to release an Alpha version of xquake last summer due this)
Is X and/or xquake still slow with Alpha's? If so, why? ;)
( has xquake ...)