[rescue] sparc10 cpu - what to do.

Dave McGuire mcguire at neurotica.com
Fri Dec 16 14:53:59 CST 2016

On 12/16/2016 02:31 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> My personal opinion: what helped to kill SPARC was interpreted
> languages like Perl, where the code to be executed was far larger than
> could fit in cache.
> When running a compiled program, the smaller caches of SPARC didn't
> matter as much. But with Perl, Python etc. having such a large
> footprint, the x86 CPUs with more L2 cache gained an advantage.
> Not sure if anyone agrees with that? It is my naive, non-OS-developer viewpoint.

  I'm not sure I can agree with that.  First, most SPARCs had much
larger caches than x86 implementations of the same era.  Second, there
wasn't much that higher-end SPARCs couldn't do faster than higher-end
x86 implementations.  There were the crappy SPARCs, like the IIi and
IIe, but they don't count in my book. ;)

  What really helped to kill SPARCs, assuming they've actually been
killed (I've seen no formal announcement of their discontinuance), is
PeeCee fanboys.


Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

More information about the rescue mailing list