[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-devel] SPARC Performance
From: |
Tinnemeyer, Jorn |
Subject: |
[Qemu-devel] SPARC Performance |
Date: |
Tue, 17 May 2005 12:57:45 +0100 |
Hello,
Just wanted to verify my results with known performance data:
When compared to native x86 performance, the emulator is working approximately
47 times slower for memory operations, 44 times slower for integer and 102
times slower for float. Full test results are at the end of message.
I am running this with qemu 0.7.0, using vmlinux-2.6.11+tcx found on the qemu
website. I cross compiled nbench (2.2.2) for Sparc using Crosstools, loaded
onto linux.img and executed the program in non graphic mode.
If this differs from other users experience, I would be very interested to see
what is incorrect with my method.
Thanks,
Joern.
Test results:
Native (x86):
ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS
INTEGER INDEX : 56.882
FLOATING-POINT INDEX : 38.723
Baseline (MSDOS*) : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
LINUX DATA BELOW
CPU : AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2700+ 2163MHz
L2 Cache : 256 KB
OS : Linux 2.6.8.1-12mdk
C compiler : cc
libc :
MEMORY INDEX : 16.509
INTEGER INDEX : 12.674
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 21.477
Baseline (LINUX) : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
Sparc (emulated using qemu 0.7.0):
ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS
INTEGER INDEX : 1.264
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 0.380
Baseline (MSDOS*) : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
LINUX DATA BELOW:
CPU :
L2 Cache :
OS : Linux 2.6.11
C compiler : sparc-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
libc : static
MEMORY INDEX : 0.352
INTEGER INDEX : 0.290
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 0.211
Baseline (LINUX) : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Qemu-devel] SPARC Performance,
Tinnemeyer, Jorn <=