ins_arm@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Roslan MdZaki) (03/24/90)
Hai there!! Has anybody ever tried using landmark speed test or si speed test ??? Are they the perfect measurement of your system's perfomance ?? I am using Gateway 2000 386 20 Mz machine with 80ns ( that's what they claim to give me ) and when I ran both those test, the result were something like 20.5 for landmark and 21.1 for SI. And, just now, I read an ads by PC BRAND machine of the same 20Mz, and they claim that their machine achieve about 26.* for landmark and 23 for SI. Why are the result so different ??? Has anybody out there who owns a Gateway 2000 especially 20Mz machine ever tried using these tests ??? How's your result compare to mine ??? I would appriciate if you guys can send email me your test result. I am thinking about asking the Gateway's technical person about the average test results for their machines if there is any. For your guys info,I just bought my Gateway machine about a month ago, and I don't have serious problems with their machine. I am pretty satisfied with their machine. I'll appreciate your comments. Roslan MdZaki Please email to: ins_arm@jhuvms.bitnet
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (03/27/90)
In article <4550@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> ins_arm@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Roslan MdZaki) writes:
$Has anybody ever tried using landmark speed test or si speed test ???
$Are they the perfect measurement of your system's perfomance ?? I am using
No. Any benchmarks, and Norton's SI is infamous for this, will only
accurately reflect the performance of the computer when executing a program
made up of a particular mixture of instructions. How well the benchmark
reflects reality is determined by how well the designer chose the mixture
of instructions to include in the benchmark. Norton apparently did a
poor job; it exaggerates the performance of non-8088 machines.
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
"So sorry, I never meant to break your heart ... but you broke mine."cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (04/06/90)
In article <1233@madnix.UUCP> tommy@madnix.UUCP (Tom Landmann) writes: $In article <260E5FB8.5636@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) writes: $>of instructions to include in the benchmark. Norton apparently did a $>poor job; it exaggerates the performance of non-8088 machines. $I guess it is safe to assume that Mr. Dunn has an 8088-based machine. :-) I would never buy such an underpowered machine! But my old 12 MHz 80286 and my new 22 MHz 80386DX don't have quite the increased performance over an IBM PC that Norton's SI says they should, and many other people with 80286, 80386DX, 80386SX, V20 and V30 based machines (and probably also a few others like the 80186, 80188 and 80486) have discovered the same thing. -- More half-baked ideas from the oven of: **************************************************************************** Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca <std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate ... for now!\n";