From: slater@gandalf.nrlssc.navy.mil (Rick Slater) Subject: Re: How does Linux compare to SUN IPC? Date: 23 Sep 1993 09:39:59 -0400
a228dhal@cdf.toronto.edu (Dhaliwal Bikram Singh) writes:
|> It has seemed to me that my Linux system at home (X and GCC running in
|> a 15mb partition, on a 386-40, with room to spare) is faster than the
|> SUN IPC workstations I use at school. I can only offer subjective
|> speculation though, ie. time for a xterm to open, etc...
|>
|> I was wondering, if anyone has done benchmarks between the two for
|> various processors. I am not saying that Linux is better, it still
|> has a ways to go before it can match the all around appeal of the SUN.
|>
I've run several "benchmarks" on both a 486DX-33 and a Sun IPC with the
overall result that the PC was in the same ballpark as the Sun. The
benchmarks were: Drystone test, whetstone test, and a large TeX file
that came with the SLS distribution (gentle.tex). The PC went from
a .tex file to a .dvi file, using the same version of tex, in a little
more than half the time that it took the Sun. OTOH, the Sun was slightly
faster on the first two tests.
For my purposes, there was no need to go further. I had satisfied
myself that the Linux box was roughly in the same ballpark as the
workstation on which this message is being composed. However, the
Sun cost in excess of $10,000 when it was new (the prices have since
dropped), and that's quite a bit more than was paid for the PC. In
terms of cost / effectiveness, Linux has already outdistanced the
Sun.