Ric Moore wrote:
> Do you have an Intel PIII or an AMD PIII clone? Could make a LOT of
> difference. Installs to my old clunker have been problematic due to some
> design flaws in the older AMD P5 CPU's. I had to roll my own kernels to
> get some speed out of it, but it was worth it, with a 200% increase in
> performance, at least. Slow as molasses to start with.
Hey, a K5, K6, and K7 ("Athlon") were all very different chips -- each
was a totally different design. So generalisations about one chip
normally don't apply to the others (unless they apply to x86 processors
in general). And if it's a 1.3 GHz processor, it's an Athlon. Which
means it's pretty similar to a PIII in performance characteristics, but
probably a bit faster (and it wouldn't have SSE).
I'm also intrigued as to how you managed to get a 200% increase in
performance from a K5 (I presume you meant a K5)? Were you enabling
specific processor work-arounds? Was that on a particular benchmark, or
did you get it in general? It seems -- implausible.
(And recommendations for a 1.2, 2.0 or 2.2-era kernel don't necessarily
apply for a 2.6 kernel -- most processor work-arounds have been built-in
to generic kernels, like the ones Fedora supplies, and are applied or
not as necessary at run-time.)
James (who started using Linux on a K5).
--
E-mail: james@ | For every complex problem, there is a solution that is
aprilcottage.co.uk | simple, neat, and wrong.
