byu@csri.toronto.edu (Benjamin Yu) (01/11/90)
I am interested in finding out the speed of the original PC (4.7 Mhz),
286 (10/12/16 Mhz), 386 (SX 16/25/33 Mhz), 486 (? Mhz), and PS/2 in terms
of MIPS. Does anyone have the information??
Benjamin Yu
University of Toronto CSNET, UUCP, BITNET:
Department of Computer Science byu@csri.toronto.edu
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 1A4 byu@csri.utoronto.ca
(o)(416)978 - 4299 (h)(416)470 - 8206 {uunet,watmath}!csri.utoronto.edu!byudavidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/11/90)
In article <1990Jan10.111607.13638@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> byu@csri.toronto.edu (Benjamin Yu) writes: | I am interested in finding out the speed of the original PC (4.7 Mhz), | 286 (10/12/16 Mhz), 386 (SX 16/25/33 Mhz), 486 (? Mhz), and PS/2 in terms | of MIPS. Does anyone have the information?? There are a number of benchmarks by vendors who report a MIPS figure. Each will report a different value, and not even the ratio of the numbers is the same between processors. If I had to pick one I would use the one from Microway, which comes with math coprocessors. You can "tune" it to assign weight to one characteristic or another, depending on your planned usage. I have two profiles around somewhere for general purpose and math intensive machines. Please note: there is no one number which will give you the "performance" of a machine, not is any one number going to summarize the relative performance of any two machines. Even the Microway benchmark, which gives you performance by category, is only an approximate indicator of DOS performance, and far less accurate for ranking machines which run multitasking, like Desqview or UNIX. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
norsk@sequent.UUCP (Doug Thompson) (01/11/90)
In article <1990Jan10.111607.13638@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> byu@csri.toronto.edu (Benjamin Yu) writes: >I am interested in finding out the speed of the original PC (4.7 Mhz), >286 (10/12/16 Mhz), 386 (SX 16/25/33 Mhz), 486 (? Mhz), and PS/2 in terms >of MIPS. Does anyone have the information?? > I don't know all of them and I'm probably off, but I can start a guess table: mach MHZ speed PC 4.77 300 KIPS 286 8 1.2 MIPS 286 10 1.5 MIPS 286 16 2.5 MIPS 386SX 16 2.6 MIPS ?? 386 16 3.4 MIPS 386 20 4.5 MIPS 386 25 5.5 MIPS 386 33 7.9 MIPS 486 25 12-15 MIPS (depends) 486 50 25 MIPS (future) -- Douglas Thompson UUCP: ..{tektronix,ogicse,uunet}!sequent!norsk Sequent Computer Systems Phone: (503) 526-5727 15450 SW Koll Parkway !"The scientist builds to learn;the engineer learns in Beaverton OR 97006 !order to build." Fred Brooks
kew@uucs1.UUCP (kew) (01/12/90)
In article <1990Jan10.111607.13638@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> byu@csri.toronto.edu (Benjamin Yu) writes: >I am interested in finding out the speed of the original PC (4.7 Mhz), >286 (10/12/16 Mhz), 386 (SX 16/25/33 Mhz), 486 (? Mhz), and PS/2 in terms >of MIPS. Does anyone have the information?? > If you have access to the machines in question, the following program is available from SIMTEL20 which works quite well: SIMTEL20 PD1:<MSDOS.SYSUTL> MIPS.ARC I can give you 2 of the numbers from this program: 286 16Mhz - 2.0 Mips 386 25Mhx - 3.2 MIPS I hope this helps :) -- Kenneth E. Wharton | ** But it's a dry heat! ** UUCS inc. Phoenix, Az | ncar!noao!asuvax!hrc!uucs1!kew sun!sunburn!gtx!uucs1!kew
rob@prism.TMC.COM (01/13/90)
>I am interested in finding out the speed of the original PC (4.7 Mhz), >286 (10/12/16 Mhz), 386 (SX 16/25/33 Mhz), 486 (? Mhz), and PS/2 in terms >of MIPS. Does anyone have the information?? With the disclaimers that a) MIPS ratings don't mean much by themselves, and b) there's disagreement over how to measure them, these are figures that are in the ballpark: PC (4.77) 0.3 AT (6) 1 AT (8) 1.4 AT (16) 2.9 386 (16) 3.3 386 (25) 5.4 386 (33) 7.1 486 (25) 14 You can extrapolate/interpolate from these numbers. Different machines running the same CPU at the same speed can show differences due to memory architecture and bus structure. Adding a cache (for example) can boost performance by 20% or so. This table takes that into account to some extent. For example, running 16 bit code, a 286-16 and 386-16 will offer about the same performance. But, since 386 machines often have better memory architectures, they tend to be faster. Still, there are some 16Mhz 286 machines that are faster than some 16Mhz 386 machines running DOS programs. The 386SX can produce the same number of MIPS as a 386, but its narrower bus means that it will typically run more slowly at a given speed. Depending on the task, this penalty could be negligible or severe. The PS/2's can be figured by checking what CPU / clock speed combination they use. IBM's claims aside, the PS/2's are no faster, clock per clock, than competing machines. The number for the 486 is an estimate based on Intel's figure for the 'average' instruction execution time and on 386 vs. 486 benchmarks I've seen. The 486 is very sensitive to the nature of the test code, and small, 'loopy' programs like benchmarks can exaggerate its performance. I'd be interested in any independently measured ratings for the 486.
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (01/16/90)
PC (4.77) 0.3 ... AT (16) 2.9 386 (16) 3.3 = 1.1*2.9 ... 386 (25) 5.4 486 (25) 14 = 2.6*5.4 I think there is an extreme element of '486 marketing bullshit/hype in this last performance figure.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/16/90)
In article <8000066@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: | 386 (25) 5.4 | 486 (25) 14 = 2.6*5.4 | | I think there is an extreme element of '486 marketing bullshit/hype in | this last performance figure. The numbers I have seen for 486 performance indicate that it is *about* 2x a 33MHz 386. Depending on which CPU intensive benchmarks you run that figure can range from 1.5 .. 3.0. If you assume that the 33MHz 386 is linearly faster than the 25MHz version, then the value you get is: 5.4 * (33/25) * 2 = 14.8. I have not measured these values personally, so all I can quote is early published figures. These *seem* to indicate that the 14 is not totally bogus, although I don't blame you for beling cautious. I'm waiting for the 50MHz 486 to be out before I upgrade again. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
pfrennin@altos86.Altos.COM (Peter Frenning) (01/17/90)
In article <8000066@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > >PC (4.77) 0.3 >... >AT (16) 2.9 >386 (16) 3.3 = 1.1*2.9 >... >386 (25) 5.4 >486 (25) 14 = 2.6*5.4 > >I think there is an extreme element of '486 marketing bullshit/hype in >this last performance figure. If you think so it can only be because you've never run a 486 based machine!!!! Although 14 MIPS may be a bit over(11 seems to be more like it with a 128Kb external cache!) The 486 IS A SCREAMER!!! The reason being that most instructions execute in fewer clockcycles than the 386. Go have a look.... You'll be impressed. Peter (The speed deamon)
rob@prism.TMC.COM (01/19/90)
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >386 (25) 5.4 >486 (25) 14 = 2.6*5.4 >I think there is an extreme element of '486 marketing bullshit/hype in >this last performance figure. Can't fault your cynicism, but the 14 MIP figure for the 486-25 is fairly well founded as these things go. It's based on several measures. 1) Intel claims the average instruction execution time for the 486 is 1.7 cycles (vs. 4.4 for the 386). This gives 25/1.7 or 14.7 MIPS. 2) The classic '1 MIP' machine is the VAX 11/780, as measured by the dhrystone. The 11/780 scores about 1500 on the dhrystone. The 486-25, according to figures published in Mips magazine, scores from about 16,300 to 26,000, depending on the OS/compiler combination used. This gives a 'VAX-MIP' range of about 11 to 17. 3) The standard MIP-rater in the MS-DOS world is the Power Meter MIPS rating. It tends to be a bit on the high side (it rates cached 386-25's and 386-33's at about 6 and 8 MIPS, respectively). I've seen at least one claim of over 15 MIPS for a 486-25 from that benchmark. 4) Most CPU bound benchmarks I've seen show the 486 to be about 2 times as fast, clock-per-clock, as the 386. Given a 5-6 MIP figure for the 386-25, that puts the 486-25 at about 10-12 MIPS. This is running 8086 code with no 486 (or 386) optimizations. Given all this, a figure of 14 seems defensible, though an argument could be made for figures lower or higher than that. On a related note, Motorola is now claiming 20 MIPS for its long-awaited, but as yet unavailable, 68040 (not clear what clock speed that's measured at).