"A hell of an improvement especially for the AMD EPYC servers"
Look closely at the stats in the headers of those three tables of test results. The NICs have different line speeds and the L3 cache sizes are different too. IPv4 and 6 for one and only IPv6 for the other.
Not exactly like for like!
This isn't a benchmark of those systems, it's showing that the code didn't regress on either hardware set with some anecdotal data. It makes sense they're not like for like.
Okay, it is up to ~40%, but the underlying changes is fundamental.
Why would you compare between the tables? It's the relative change in each line that is of interest.
Each table contains one column with the patches and one column without the patches - the hardware is unchanged. The different tables are to measure the impact of the patches across different hardware.
9th Jan ...
"A hell of an improvement especially for the AMD EPYC servers"
Look closely at the stats in the headers of those three tables of test results. The NICs have different line speeds and the L3 cache sizes are different too. IPv4 and 6 for one and only IPv6 for the other.
Not exactly like for like!
This isn't a benchmark of those systems, it's showing that the code didn't regress on either hardware set with some anecdotal data. It makes sense they're not like for like.
Okay, it is up to ~40%, but the underlying changes is fundamental.
Why would you compare between the tables? It's the relative change in each line that is of interest.
Each table contains one column with the patches and one column without the patches - the hardware is unchanged. The different tables are to measure the impact of the patches across different hardware.