Linux and the Desktop Pentium M: Uncommon Performance

47 Comments

View All Comments

• - Saturday, October 24, 2009 - link

  http://www.goph3r.com/mh">http://www.goph3r.com/mh
  (air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
  lv, coach, chane bag $35
  COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
  christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
  edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
  Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
  AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31
  http://www.goph3r.com/mh">http://www.goph3r.com/mh
  

• BullCreek - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link

  Does anyone know where I can buy socket479 dothan core pentium Ms online? Newegg and various other places stock the socket 478 variety, but I haven't found anyone that has the socket 479 type.

• vl - Thursday, December 30, 2004 - link

  If you are using an IDE drive make sure DMA was enabled. To check you can use the hdparm command.

• Lynx516 - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

  Something is disasterously wrong with your setup. Have you tried using a live CD and try compiling with that?
  
  What command are you using to compile the kernel? Are you sure you have GCC installed correctly? What do you get if you type gcc-config -l?
  
  Are you sure nothing else is running (well major tasks)?
  
  Have you tried running it as root?

• KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

  Correct they are "user". Here are the results with GCC 3.4.3 on the same system on the second run.
  
  real 20m42.192s
  user 16m39.148s
  sys 1m21.287s
  dave:~/bench/gcc/linux-2.6.4 # cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz
  cpu MHz : 2105.068
  
  ... Not sure what is the problem here. The CPU clock is correct. If anyone else has any ideas as to why only the GCC benchmark would be affected I am all ears.
  
  Kristopher

• Yozza - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

  Results with gcc version 3.4.3 20041125 on the Banias 1.7GHz (DDR266/400FSB).
  
  run 1:
  real 4m40.758s
  user 3m58.039s
  sys 0m20.060s
  
  run 2: (after "make clean")
  real 4m24.759s
  user 3m58.409s
  sys 0m19.978s
  
  run 3: (again, after "make clean")
  real 4m27.728s
  user 3m58.233s
  sys 0m20.161s
  
  Of course, this is with gcc 3.4.3. I'd rather not install 3.4.1 on this system only to rollback to 3.4.3 straight after.
  
  I assume the kernel compile times you showed in the article were from "user" (or user + sys), rather than "real", as the latter is affected by other things happening on the system whereas the former gives the actual CPU time taken by the process.
  
  The results are impressive to say the least. It's certainly extremely puzzling that your results with Dothan were so disparate. One would expect it to do very well indeed based on my results with 1.7GHz Banias + DDR266.
  
  For comparison, my 3GHz NW P4:
  run 1:
  real 4m50.687s
  user 4m19.365s
  sys 0m25.261s
  
  run 2:
  real 4m46.675s
  user 4m23.775s
  sys 0m24.567s

• KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

  Yozzo, Can you please do kernel 2.6.4 like we did in the benchmark?
  
  Kristopher

• Yozza - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

  Development on the 3.4 gcc branch has only recently stabilised, and the pentium-m cflag was indeed quite buggy/broken in earlier releases, hence why I stated that gcc 3.4.1 is "pretty old". Not in the absolute sense, but rather in terms of the amount of development work that has gone into the 3.4 branch since.
  
  Some quick benchmarks with gcc version 3.3.4 20040623:
  System was P-M Banias 1.7GHz, 768MB DDR266, i855PM; on a Dell D600.
  # time make
  ...
  real 9m36.940s
  user 8m40.395s
  sys 0m39.643s
  
  2nd run:
  real 9m35.056s
  user 8m40.515s
  sys 0m39.664s
  
  
  For comparison, my 3GHz NW P4, 1.5GB DDR400, i875P:
  1st run:
  real 10m0.508s
  user 9m0.929s
  sys 0m46.210s
  
  2nd run:
  real 9m58.564s
  user 9m3.107s
  sys 0m45.658s
  
  Kernel was 2.6.10-ck1-nitro1, with custom .config (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/yaoyaoliu/.config).
  
  I didn't have gcc 3.4.3 available on my laptop to test, but gcc 3.3.4 clearly shows the expected performance and hence that there is nothing inherently wrong with the P-M architecture that makes it slow at compiling -- indeed, the 1.7GHz Banias P-M (DDR266, 400FSB) is slightly faster than my 3GHz Northwood P4 (dual DDR400, 800FSB).
  
  I was also interested to see how much faster gcc 3.4.3 was compared to 3.3.4, and so decided to do a compile on my 3GHz P4 desktop machine (same kernel):
  real 6m34.443s
  user 5m52.910s
  sys 0m33.019s
  
  Interesting results indeed.

• KristopherKubicki - Monday, December 27, 2004 - link

  The GCC we used is the same GCC bundled with SUSE 9.1, our test platform. I don't think 6 months is too old for a processor architecture that has been available for close to 2 years. However, we will get a chance to revist these numbers in the very near future, and i will redo the tests with GCC 3.4.3 and GCC 3.4.1
  
  Hope that helps,
  
  Kristopher

• vaystrem - Monday, December 27, 2004 - link

  From
  
  http://gcc.gnu.org
  
  The GCC Homepage:
  3.4.1 released July 2004
  3.4.3 released November 2004
  
  If you look at the changelist there have been a lot of improvements even between these few releases.