jk@utastro.UUCP (John Krist) (06/10/86)
For those who keep pointing at the higher ratings for Intel
chips on the Dhrystone compared to the 32k ratings, I challenge you
to do any benchmark using arrays, looping, etc. with a number greater
than 64k. Once you hit that magic number, the segmentation of the
Intel chips comes into play and down goes the speed. Try doing the
Sieve of Eratosthenes (sp?) with the number of primes being 80,000.
Then let's talk about their speed versus the 32k.
Also, remember that one benchmark means nothing. Why use a Cray
for Lotus 1-2-3 instead of a PC?
John Krist
U. Texas Astronomy Dept.clif@intelca.UUCP (06/12/86)
> > For those who keep pointing at the higher ratings for Intel > chips on the Dhrystone compared to the 32k ratings, I challenge you > to do any benchmark using arrays, looping, etc. with a number greater > than 64k. Once you hit that magic number, the segmentation of the > Intel chips comes into play and down goes the speed. Try doing the > Sieve of Eratosthenes (sp?) with the number of primes being 80,000. > Then let's talk about their speed versus the 32k. > > Also, remember that one benchmark means nothing. Why use a Cray > for Lotus 1-2-3 instead of a PC? > > John Krist > U. Texas Astronomy Dept. I have run all of these benchmarks with large arrays, lots of loops etc. I am quite sure they were much faster than the 32032. The Intel chip was the 386. -- Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif {Stamp Out Stupid Signatures}