Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:37:10 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [quad core results] BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements |
| |
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:24:29 +0200 Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 07:45 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:41:51 +0300 > > > >It shows similar curves and behavior to the 8-core results i > > > >posted > > > >- BFS is slower than mainline in virtually every measurement. > > > >The ratios are different for different parts of the graphs - but > > > >the trend is similar. > > > > > > Dude, not cool. > > > > > > 1. Quad HT is not the same as a 4-core desktop, you're doing it > > > with 8 cores > > > > 4 cores, 8 threads. Which is basically the standard desktop cpu > > going forward... (4 cores already is today, 8 threads is that any > > day now) > > Except on your typical smartphone, which will run linux and probably > vastly outnumber the number of "traditional" linux desktops.
yeah the trend in cellphones is only quad core without HT, not quad core WITH ht ;-)
-- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
| |