Remember the SB1000 a totally differnt animal than the SB2500, the sun blade
1000 is FCAL based with an ultra sparc IIICu processor with 8mb external
cache, compared to the blade 2500 which is IDE based with IIIi and 2mb
external cache so depending on the applications running on each of these
machines your benchmarks will vary.

Most likely forte is optomized to used the CPU's external cache which I
think is the biggest bottleneck on the SB2500.


"Chris Morgan" <cm@mihalis.net> wrote in message
news:867jyvlwtr.fsf@elrond.bloomberg.com...
>
> Hi all,
>
> I did a trial build of a bunch of software I look after (mostly C++)
> on a new Sun Blade 2500 with two 1.28 GHz cpus, and for fun compared
> the elapsed time to an older Blade 1000 with dual 750MHz cpus.
>
> Here are the result :-
>
> SB2500 SB1000
>
> real 8m47.836s 15m22.264s
> user 16m15.640s 26m38.170s
> sys 0m55.280s 1m34.190s
>
>
> Yow! I like it.
>
> Both machines used Forte 6 update 2 and have 2 GB RAM. gmake was
> used to drive, with the -j3 flag to ensure the CPUs are kept busy at
> all times. These compiles are very cpu bound, I don't think much
> else really affects the readings more than a few % (linking is a few
> seconds for each of a handful of shared libs, which are all that
> gets built).
>
> Now, the disclaimers :-
>
> 1. I'm not an expert benchmark engineer
> 2. The older machine was doing other stuff, but nothing intensive.
> 3. The newer machine is at a higher patchlevel
> 4. The newer machine was only booted up on Friday, the older machine
> three weeks ago
>
> Even so, I think I can say the new machine is (by the standards of
> Sun SPARC Solaris machines that I am personally familiar with)
> "fast"
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Morgan
> "Post posting of policy changes by the boss will result in
> real rule revisions that are irreversible"
>
> - anonymous correspondent