[comp.sys.apple] Benchmarks - Even on a Zip Chip

megaquark@pro-sol.cts.COM (Gary Snow) (07/20/88)

Here are some comparision benchmarks done on various Apple Computers.  The
3.6mhz machine is equiped with an Accelerator //e.

Computer            Speed            Basic                   Time1 Time2 Time3
------------------- ---------------- ----------------------- ----- ----- -----
Apple //e           1.0mhz 65C02     ProDOS Basic 1.1-40col   7:38  2:20  4:44
Apple //e           1.0mhz 65C02     ProDOS Basic 1.1-80col  XXXXX XXXXX  7:29
Apple //e           1.0mhz 65C02     Applesoft Basic/DOS 3.3  7:24
Apple //e           1.0mhz 65C02     Integer Basic            3:04
Apple //e           3.6mhz 65C02     ProDOS Basic 1.1-40col   2:21  0:43  2:52
Apple //e           3.6mhz 65C02     ProDOS BAsic 1.1-80col  XXXXX XXXXX  5:14
Apple //e           3.6mhz 65C02     Applesoft Basic/DOS 3.3  2:17
Apple //e           3.6mhz 65C02     Integer Basic            0:57
Apple //e           4.0mhz 65C02     ProDos Basic 1.1-40col   2:24  0:43  3:11
Apple //e           4.0mhz 65C02     ProDos Basic 1.1-80col  XXXXX XXXXX  5:46
Apple //c           1.0mhz 65C02     ProDOS Basic 1.1         7:38
Apple //c           6.0mhz Z80C      Microsoft Basic/CPM     11:21
Apple //gs          1.0mhz 65C816    ProDOS Basic 1.1         7:38
Apple //gs          2.8mhz 65C816    ProDOS Basic 1.1-40col   2:50  0:51  2:03
Apple //gs          2.8mhz 65C816    ProDOS Basic 1.1-80col  XXXXX XXXXX  3:20
Apple //gs          2.8mhz 65C816    Applesoft Basic/DOS 3.3  2:44
 
Seive #1 - 10 FOR X=1 TO 1000
Time1      20 FOR Y=2 TO INT(X/2)+1
           30 IF INT(X/Y)=X/Y THEN GOTO 60
           40 NEXT Y
           50 PRINT X;" ";
           60 NEXT X
           70 PRINT : PRINT "DONE!!!"
 
Seive #2 - 10 FOR X=1 TO 100,000
Time2      20 NEXT X
           30 PRINT "DONE!!!"
 
Seive #3 - 10 FOR X=1 TO 10,000
Time3      20 PRINT X
Printing   30 NEXT X
Seive      40 PRINT "DONE!!!"
 
>From the looks of it the Zip Chip is not quite up to Snuff with the good old
Accelerated //e, because it lost in both the prime number seive and the
printing seive, and only tied in the counting sieve....tsk tsk tsk.
UUCP:[ihnp4 cbosgd hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc]!crash!pnet01!pro-sol!megaquark
ARPA:crash!pnet01!pro-sol!megaquark@nosc.mil
INET:megaquark@pro-sol.cts.com

tmetro@lynx.northeastern.EDU (07/25/88)

 
 Gary Snow <megaquark@pro-sol.cts.com> writes:
> Here are some comparision benchmarks done on various Apple Computers. 
> The 3.6mhz machine is equiped with an Accelerator //e.
>
> Computer    Speed            Basic                   Time1 Time2 Time3
> ----------- ---------------- ----------------------- ----- ----- -----
> Apple //e   1.0MHz 65C02     ProDOS Basic 1.1-40col   7:38  2:20  4:44
> Apple //e   1.0MHz 65C02     ProDOS Basic 1.1-80col  XXXXX XXXXX  7:29
 
Accelerator:
> Apple //e   3.6MHz 65C02     ProDOS Basic 1.1-40col   2:21  0:43  2:52
> Apple //e   3.6MHz 65C02     ProDOS BAsic 1.1-80col  XXXXX XXXXX  5:14
 
Zip Chip:
> Apple //e   4.0MHz 65C02     ProDos Basic 1.1-40col   2:24  0:43  3:11
> Apple //e   4.0MHz 65C02     ProDos Basic 1.1-80col  XXXXX XXXXX  5:46
 
> Apple //gs  2.8MHz 65C816    ProDOS Basic 1.1-40col   2:50  0:51  2:03
> Apple //gs  2.8MHz 65C816    ProDOS Basic 1.1-80col  XXXXX XXXXX  3:20
 
> From the looks of it the Zip Chip is not quite up to Snuff with the
> good old Accelerated //e, because it lost in both the prime number
> seive and the printing seive, and only tied in the counting sieve...
> tsk tsk tsk.
 
> UUCP:[ihnp4 cbosgd hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc]!crash!pnet01!pro-sol!
> megaquark
> ARPA:crash!pnet01!pro-sol!megaquark@nosc.mil
> INET:megaquark@pro-sol.cts.com
 
The author of the message forgot to list "ZipChip" in place of "65C02"
where it was used. I guess all the 4.0MHz specs are for a ZipChip.
 
The differences may be due to the size of the cache RAM used in each
implementation. In the case of the accelerator card it has 256K of fast
RAM to work with - used both for the BASIC loop and a copy of the BASIC
ROMs. The Zip Chip probably doesn't have enough cache RAM to hold both
the BASIC loop and the ROM code that it accesses, so it probably has to
slow to 1Mhz to fetch a few bytes each time through the loop.
 
A chip similar to the Zip Chip (using cache RAM within the CPU package)
is being developed that will run at 8Mhz. It will be based on a Western
Design 8MHz W65C02. There is a 65C816 version for the //gs in the works
too.
 
  ___________
 / Tom Metro \_____________________________________________________________ 
|                                                   _   _                  |
| INET: tmetro@pro-angmar.uucp              --/\/\_| |_| '- DigiTell, Inc. |
| ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-angmar!tmetro@nosc.mil             Newton, MA     |
| UUCP: [ihnp4 sdcsvax nosc]!crash!pnet01!pro%angmar!tmetro                |
|_Alternate: tmetro@lynx.northeastern.edu__________________________________|
  "The Ghost crowd supports me. They're "BOO"-ing you!" -Hobbes