On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 03:10:07PM -0600, Randy Clarksean wrote: > I guess I was not worried about major improvements from kernel changes as > much as I was disappointed in the XP 2100+ delivering a nice speed up in > general. As suggested by you and others, the kernel should NOT have make > that much difference. I am just disappointed in overall CPU performance. Why? If your code + data does not fit into the L2 cache, you are hauling it over the same bus as a PIII. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. Unfortunately the answer for that right now is to get a Xeon... > Comments to other replies ... > > There is a lot of memory management. The run takes around 450-500 MB of > RAM, and it is an iterative solution, which means things have to be operated > on a lot ... moving to and from the CPU. Exactly. Get a Xeon with dual channel DDR. Cheers, florin -- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20021031/002ebad4/attachment.pgp