<br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The Pentium M and Pentium D are much more alike, architecturally, than<br>either and the Pentium 4,
</blockquote><div><br>[cpu rant]<br>Off topic: not true. The Pentium D is the final Pentium 4 netburst architecture based design. It is not at all close to the Pentium M. The M is much more a derivative of the pentium pro,ii,iii, & iii-m before it as core and more distantly core2 are follow ons to the M. Yes the D (50xx) and Woodcrest core2s (51xx) shared the same socket and front side bus but internally they are unrelated.
<br>[/cpu rant]<br><br>Regardless comparing between different cpus doesn't matter, only the difference between runs on the same cpu.<br><br>for instance on a 1.4Ghz efficeon:<br><br>python2.5:<br>10 loops, best of 3: 932 msec per loop
<br>python 3.0a1 svn trunk:<br>10 loops, best of 3: 1.54 sec per loop<br><br>(both compiled with gcc 4.1.2 -O3)<br><br>which falls right smack in the middle of the measurements others were reporting in this thread. ;)<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Without looking into it at a much lower level,<br>it's hard to tell, but the difference between a 1MB and 2MB L2 cache
<br>might make all the difference in 3.0 performance.</blockquote><div><br>doubtful, python's ceval core and the data representing the code being executed are both tiny. <br></div><br></div>-gps<br>