Compaq 108164-003 - ProLiant - 800 White Paper page 17

444A/0696
W P
HITE APER
(cont.)
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
3000
. .
. .
. .
2500
. .
. .
. .
2000
. .
. .
. .
1500
. .
. .
. .
1000
. .
. .
. .
500
. .
. .
. .
0
. .
. .
300
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
Figure 6. Single CPU performance comparison.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
3000
. .
. .
. .
2500
. .
. .
. .
2000
. .
. .
. .
. .
1500
. .
. .
. .
1000
. .
. .
. .
500
. .
. .
. .
. . 0
. .
300
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
Figure 7. Dual CPU performance comparison.
. .
. .
This data again illustrates the increased power of the Pentium Pro processor with 32-bit
. .
. .
Windows NT applications. It also demonstrates the benefit of large L2 cache in the
. .
Pentium/133 and /166 CPUs (as opposed to the smaller cache in Pentium/100 CPUs.)
. .
. .
The overall indication is that 1500 users is about the practical upper limit for tests using this
. .
. .
LoadSim user profile. Over 1500 users the response time exceeds three seconds.
. .
. .
17
LoadSim Score vs. # Users
1P CPU Comparison
(lower score is better)
500 800 1000
Number of Users
LoadSim Score vs. # Users
2P CPU Comparison
(lower score is better)
500 800 1000
Number of Users
1200 1500
1200 1500
P5/100
P5/133
P5/166
P6/166
P5/100
P5/133
P5/166
P6/166