Re: small performance comparison IIe vs 2x II

Hi Riccardo,

Interesting.  Unsure if Hardinfo2 is ported or builds on a BSD based 
distro.  If so, you may want to give it a try. Hardinfo2 has some 
interesting benchmark tests.


Some benchmarks based on my various Linux based systems.

https://pastebin.com/raw/eptnLerq


Hardinfo2, source code:

https://github.com/hardinfo2/hardinfo2


Regards,

Tony


On 10/16/25 10:49 AM, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
> Hi!
>
> just to share a comparison, now that I upgraded my Ultra2 to 10.1 I 
> can compare "apples with apples".
>
> How does a Netra T1 compare to Ultra2?
> General setup is similar. I "lost" some RAM modules for both, so RAM 
> situation is a little anemic.
>
> Netra T1:
> [     1.000000] total memory = 1536 MB
> [     1.000000] avail memory = 1486 MB
> [     1.000000] mainbus0 (root): SUNW,UltraAX-i2 (Netra T1 200): 
> hostid 8305d938
> [     1.000000] cpu0 at mainbus0: SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIe @ 500 MHz, CPU id 0
> [     1.000000] cpu0: manuf 17, impl 13, mask 14
> [     1.000000] cpu0: system tick frequency 11.111 MHz
> [     1.000000] cpu0: 16K instruction (32 b/l), 16K data (32 b/l), 
> 256K external (64 b/l)
>
> [     3.490015] sd0 at scsibus0 target 0 lun 0: <QUANTUM, 
> ATLAS10K2-TY367J, DA40> disk fixed
> [     3.585683] sd0: 35020 MB, 17338 cyl, 10 head, 413 sec, 512 
> bytes/sect x 71721820 sectors
> [     3.690023] sd0: sync (50.00ns offset 31), 16-bit (40.000MB/s) 
> transfers, tagged queueing
>
>
>
> Ultra2:
> [     1.000000] total memory = 1024 MB
> [     1.000000] avail memory = 984 MB
> [     1.000000] mainbus0 (root): SUNW,Ultra-2 (Sun Ultra 2 UPA/SBus): 
> hostid 80c04df4
> [     1.000000] cpu0 at mainbus0: SUNW,UltraSPARC-II @ 295.992 MHz, 
> CPU id 0
> [     1.000000] cpu0: manuf 17, impl 11, mask 20
> [     1.000000] cpu0: 16K instruction (32 b/l), 16K data (32 b/l), 
> 2048K external (64 b/l)
> [     1.000000] cpu1 at mainbus0: SUNW,UltraSPARC-II @ 295.992 MHz, 
> CPU id 1
> [     1.000000] cpu1: manuf 17, impl 11, mask 20
> [     1.000000] cpu1: 16K instruction (32 b/l), 16K data (32 b/l), 
> 2048K external (64 b/l)
>
>
> [     3.230023] sd0 at scsibus0 target 0 lun 0: <FUJITSU, MAJ3182M 
> SUN18G, 0804> disk fixed
> [     3.324193] sd0: 17274 MB, 7508 cyl, 19 head, 248 sec, 512 
> bytes/sect x 35378533 sectors
> [     3.430026] sd0: sync (100.00ns offset 15), 16-bit (20.000MB/s) 
> transfers, tagged queueing
>
> never got if the IIe is somehow a "cheap" version and how it does 
> compare to the original II processor. It has only 256K cache compared 
> to 2MBytes.
>
> 300MHz x 2 = 600Mhz ? 20% faster?
>
> The Ultra2 sure has a slower disk and less RAM.
>
>
>
> Let's try a couple of things.
> 1. Compilation of GNUstep base library - should fit in RAM decently. I 
> exclude the configure part since that is not paralle and slow anyway.
> 2. Running tests of GNUstep base.
>
>
> NetraT1. (make -j1)
> gnustep-base compile:
> 2605.78 real      2452.17 user       142.33 sys
>
> gnustep-base tests:
> 5599.20 real      4640.70 user       854.28 sys
>
>
> Ultra2: (make -j2)
> gnustep-base compile:
> 1786.32 real      3201.10 user       178.55 sys
>
> gnustep-base tests:
> 4973.47 real      6726.23 user      1158.18 sys
>
>
> It shows that in raw compilation real time the IIi is ca. 1.4x slower 
> than the 2x II!
> Interesting is the full user time, might suppose that a single CPU is 
> 1.28 slower... but the clock ismuch less, so maybe the 2MB cache do 
> wonders in compilation?
> For running tests instead the difference is smaller. Still the dual 
> CPU wins.
>
> The T1 consumed for sure less electricity, just or the amount of 
> whirring fans. Should meter it too once!
>
>
> Riccardo
>