rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) (08/12/87)
In article <3560@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> newton@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mike Newton) writes: > Hi -- > ... > Probably like a lot of Mac II buyers, when I saw the latest issue of Byte, > I was very disappointed. The article causing this disapointment was the > one comparing the Mac II vs. the 80386 based PS2/80. I, too, have read the byte benchmark articles, and am of the opinion that the Byte people are biased towards the 386. I guess that's to be expected; since they have a history of belittling the 68k (remember the 68k special issue that was SUPPOSED to be a separate issue? Or how about the IBM Piece of Crap special issue that comes out every year?) Anyway, here is what I find hard to swallow about the two articles I've seen (Mac SE/68020 acc. board vs. a Compaq 386, and Mac II against Piece of Shit 2/80 [that's a lot of shit! :-]): First, the article cautions that the benchmarks test compilers as well as the hardware. But their cover screams: Benchmarking the 386 and the 020! If I were totally unfamiliar with microprocessors, or if I simply looked at the table of results without reading the article, I would have concluded that the 386 beats the 020 hands down, and run out to buy a Compaq the next day. Next, note how sly they are. They claim that the code has not been optimized for any processor, and they have not used register variables. The reason was that doing so would not be fair to any particular processor. But in not using register variables, are they not actually putting the 020 at a disadvantage? Would the fact that the 386 has only 2 (two! despite Intel claims otherwise) general purpose registers and the 68k has 8D+7A=15 general purpose regs have made a difference? Why the hell did the 68k designers put those regs there? So they can be not used for benchmarks? I also question their using such a strange configuration (a Mac SE with an accelerator board) for comparison. The Compaq is the top of the line 386 machine available today, so why not get a top of the line 68020 machine? Why not a Sun/3, Apollo, or even an NCR Tower! Never mind the cost difference, if you want to compare processors, compare processors. (I hope Mac fans don't feel too bad about this.) There are other subtle things that people may not notice. E.g. the benchmarks were compiled using MacC from Consulair (I believe. I'm thinking of the first article.) I don't know how that compiler works, but if it is half decent, it would produce a double-clickable appl. and print the results in a window. Now, if they started timing at the double click, they would have timed the initialization of ROM and the creation of a window before getting to the benchmark itself. I doubt they are that stupid, but you never know. Or how about the fact that the 68k in the Mac has stop whatever it's doing and read out the screen buffer 60 times a second. On the Compaq they probably did something like: C>sieve 10000000 primes C> (They sure know how to exaggerate, don't they?) The point is, due to its inherent operating mode, the Mac (and almost all 68k based machines) has to take care of many other things (mostly maintaining the graphics on the screen) while running a benchmark. The 386 does not. It doesn't have to, it can't even handle graphics. After degrading the 68k to their hearts content, the benchmarkers sit back and inform us the the only conclusion that can be drawn from their results is that the Compaq runs these benchmarks faster than the Mac SE with a 020 accelerator. They had to say that, because they know those 386 machines aren't good for anything else. Intel probably built them so the can give 10000000 primes on a sieve benchmark. You can probably tell that I'm eagerly awaiting Byte's next enlightening article with a critical and objective analysis of the 68k and the 386, in which they will probably match the PS2/80 against a Mac 128K, because its only fair to do such a comparision, in order to avoid being unfair to any particular processor. In the mean time, I will go play Uninvited on the Mac. (This article was written without the Byte articles for reference. I only used my memory, so there may be factual inaccuracies. I deeply regret any such errors. I also disclaim any responsibility for them.) Also, why don't one of you technical fellows out there who, unlike me, really knows what he is talking about write a fuming letter to Byte and blast the shit out of them? -Rob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. New Brunswick, NJ 08903 {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum" -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. New Brunswick, NJ 08903 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum"
brian@casemo.UUCP (Brian Cuthie ) (08/12/87)
In article <13885@topaz.rutgers.edu>, rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) writes: > I, too, have read the byte benchmark articles, and am of the opinion that > the Byte people are biased towards the 386. I guess that's to be expected; > since they have a history of belittling the 68k (remember the 68k special > issue that was SUPPOSED to be a separate issue? Or how about the IBM Piece > of Crap special issue that comes out every year?) ^^^^(note 1) > > Anyway, here is what I find hard to swallow about the two articles I've > seen (Mac SE/68020 acc. board vs. a Compaq 386, and Mac II against Piece > of Shit 2/80 [that's a lot of shit! :-]): ^^^^ (note 1) > ... > ... would the fact that > the 386 has only 2 (two! despite Intel claims otherwise) general purpose > registers and the 68k has 8D+7A=15 general purpose regs have made a ^^^^^^^ How is it that the Mr. Hsu can claim that the Intel processor only has two general purpose registers and then lump the 68k's Address and Data registers into one 'general purpose' goup. This is *highly* biased. > difference? Why the hell did the 68k designers put those regs there? ^^^^ (note 1) ... > Mac SE with an accelerator board) for comparison. The Compaq is the > top of the line 386 machine available today, so why not get a top of > the line 68020 machine? Why not a Sun/3, Apollo, or even an NCR Tower! I suspect because they were actually comparing implimentations likely to be owned by most people. Granted, the compaq 386 is less likely to be a home computer than the Mac. Still, it is more likely than Sun et al. > > There are other subtle things that people may not notice. E.g. > the benchmarks were compiled using MacC from Consulair (I believe. I'm > thinking of the first article.) I don't know how that compiler works, ^^^^^^^^ You can't be sure ????? ... > the Mac has stop whatever it's doing and read out the screen buffer > 60 times a second. On the Compaq they probably did something like: > C>sieve > 10000000 primes > C> > (They sure know how to exaggerate, don't they?) The point is, due to > its inherent operating mode, the Mac (and almost all 68k based machines) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I would *really* like to see you back this up ! > has to take care of many other things (mostly maintaining the graphics > on the screen) while running a benchmark. The 386 does not. It doesn't > have to, it can't even handle graphics. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is plainly irresponsible !!!!! Any processor can handle graphics. Some are better suited to it than others. It would be hard to make any claims that the 68k was more suited to graphics than the 80X86. > > After degrading the 68k to their hearts content, the benchmarkers While you degrade the 80x86. ... > (This article was written without the Byte articles for reference. I only > used my memory, so there may be factual inaccuracies. I deeply regret ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Then why waste our (the net's) time with this meaningless dribble !! > any such errors. I also disclaim any responsibility for them.) I would too if I were you. > > Also, why don't one of you technical fellows out there who, unlike me, really ^^^^^^^^^ That would be just about anyone. > knows what he is talking about write a fuming letter to Byte and blast > the shit out of them? ^^^^ (note 1) > > -Rob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for > rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications > RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. > New Brunswick, NJ 08903 {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu} > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum" > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for > rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications > RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. > New Brunswick, NJ 08903 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum" Nice touch. Two signatures for the price of one... All in all I find Mr. Hsu's comments to be ill founded, irresponsible and offensive. He obviosuly does not have any real understaning of the issues involved and is just as highly biased towards the 68k as he claims byte to be towards the 80x86. I did not read the byte article so I can't defend or attack it. Obviously Mr. Hsu can't remember it either. So who is he to attack it so violently ? I also have no intention of defending or attacking either processor. They both have the architectural strengths and weaknesses. I currently own a full blown AT and am trying to sell it for a Mac II. I have previously owned Macs and a Lisa 2/10. -Brian Note 1: There is *absolutely* no reason for profanity in a well presented argument. Mr. Hsu has obviously replace four letter words for reasoning. This type of argument style is nothing more than offensive and has no place on the net. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brian Cuthie CASE Communications Corp. Columbia, Md. 21046 (301) 290 - 7443 home ARPA: brian@umbc3.umd.edu UUCP: ...seismo!mimsy!brian@umbc3.umd.edu work UUCP: ...seismo!mimsy!aplcen!casemo!brian
msf@amelia (Michael S. Fischbein) (08/13/87)
In article <13885@topaz.rutgers.edu> rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) writes: Stuff elided concerning Byte's alledged bias, IBM bashing, etc. > I also question their using such a strange configuration (a >Mac SE with an accelerator board) for comparison. The Compaq is the >top of the line 386 machine available today, so why not get a top of >the line 68020 machine? Why not a Sun/3, Apollo, or even an NCR Tower! >Never mind the cost difference, if you want to compare processors, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Check out the prices available; compare list to list or discount to discount and don't be too surprised! By the time you pay for an SE and accelerator board, you are pretty close to the SUN, Apollo, or even HP price area. Further, the designed-in-from-the-start machines are much faster, even if the clock, coprocessors, etc are identical. I would have really liked to have seen a comparison against one of the $5k 68020 Unix boxes coming out for the business market. The use of the odd hardware combination begs for an explanation, but was not provided in the article (to my recollection). If workstation type graphics and capabilities are desired, they should have been present on both machines. If that is wanted, the Mac II is probably the best buy on the market today for a standalone machine. (Oh no. I'm about to get flamed to death.....) mike Michael Fischbein msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov ...!seismo!decuac!csmunix!icase!msf These are my opinions and not necessarily official views of any organization.
rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) (08/14/87)
In reply to Mr. Cuthie's highly responsible, intelligent, and dispassionate retort of my previous posting, I offer the following petty attempt of self defense. As I find his criticism of my overusing expletives to be valid, I will try to avoid them, albeit with great regret (note 1). In article <213@casemo.UUCP> brian@casemo.UUCP (Brian Cuthie ) writes: >This is *highly* biased. To be absolutely honest, I am indeed biased. How can one not be biased on the highly emotional issue of "which processor is better"? Mr. Cuthie claims to be impartial on the subject; if so he is missing out on two of the strongest of human feelings: love and hate. But I strongly suspect that, in replying so harshly to an article lauding the 68000, he has revealed a secret affection for the 80x86. > > thinking > ^^^^^^^^ > You can't be sure ????? If my article appears to you to be the work of some mindless idiot who can't think, surely you will not have troubled yourself to honor it with such a dignified, critical, and rational reply. As far as I remember (I'm sure Mr. Cuthie seriously doubts the reliability of my memory), I was really thinking at the time I wrote the article. I base this on the fact that I was conscious of electro-chemical activity in my brain while writing. > > have to, it can't even handle graphics. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This is plainly irresponsible !!!!! Any processor can handle graphics. From what I've heard, the 386 does not have bit-manipulation instructions. Perhaps that's why Intel is developing a graphics coprocessor. > While you degrade the 80x86. Surely Mr. Cuthie will not deny me of such a great pleasure. I would not call it degrading, however. I would call it telling the truth and nothing but the truth. > Then why waste our (the net's) time with this meaningless dribble !! Call it what you will, but this meaningless dribble is to me the consummate expression of the highest level of human wisdom. As for wasting your time, I offer my sincerest apologies. > > don't one of you technical fellows out there who, unlike me, really > ^^^^^^^^^ > That would be just about anyone. I surely hope so. Being a person of extreme vanity, I would be devastated to learn otherwise. > Nice touch. Two signatures for the price of one... Thank you. As I have already noted, I have great self pride, and love to see my name as much as possible. > He obviosuly does not have any real understaning of the issues My God! Is it really that obvious? I tried my best to conceal this grave flaw, but apparently it cannot escape the acute and the observing. > > -Brian > Note 1: There is *absolutely* no reason for profanity in a well presented > argument. Mr. Hsu has obviously replace four letter words for reasoning. > This type of argument style is nothing more than offensive and has no > place on the net. Note 1: With all due respect to Mr. Cuthie and all God-fearing, clean-living people everywhere, I would like to propose that profanity is in the eye of the beholder (listener). What you call profanity are mere interjections to me, such as Wow! Great! etc. I used them to make my article livelier and more vivid. In fact I recommend their usage for dramatic impact. Apparently it worked, since Mr. Cuthie was able to note every one of them, except one. And besides, I didn't even use the F word! > > Brian Cuthie > -Rob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. New Brunswick, NJ 08903 {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum" One more time: -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. New Brunswick, NJ 08903 {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum"
paul@aucs.UUCP (08/14/87)
> ... stuff deleted ... > >All in all I find Mr. Hsu's comments to be ill founded, irresponsible and >offensive. He obviosuly does not have any real understaning of the issues >involved and is just as highly biased towards the 68k as he claims byte >to be towards the 80x86. > I agree with Brian, although I felt Byte's choice for a 68020-based micro was very poor. A Macintosh spends something like 25% of its time updating the screen, and you can bet that the Compaq 386 does not. And Brian's argument that more people are likely to own the enhanced Mac than a Sun or Apollo is probably true, but I know more people who own/use Sun's/Apollo's than 68020- enhanced Mac's. Incidently, I own both a Compaq Deskpro (8088) and a Mac SE and use both equally. I prefer the Mac, but I am realistic about the presence of PC's in the computer industry. > >-Brian > >Note 1: There is *absolutely* no reason for profanity in a well presented >argument. Mr. Hsu has obviously replace four letter words for reasoning. >This type of argument style is nothing more than offensive and has no >place on the net. > I totally agree with Brian. Certain people tend to use profanity to get a point across, but if they actually tried, they probably could find a better way to say the same thing and not make a fool of themselves in the process! Paul H. Steele UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Paul Acadia University BITNET: Paul@Acadia Wolfville, NS Internet: Paul%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU CANADA B0P 1X0 PHONEnet: (902) 542-2201x587
jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (08/19/87)
There was a huge flame war on Bix with all the Macintosh people
dumping on Byte. The Byte response was:
1. Using a high-level language is fair, since people write
in high-level languages.
2. We used what compilers were available.
3. Anyone can gripe about results and if we listened
to them, all benchmarks would be in assembler.
There will be some sort of clarification/follow-up in a future
issue, if only a synopsis of the similar griping under
'Best of Bix'.
I'm not much on conspiracy theories (Byte's after the 68000),
but from what I've seen, they have less Mac/68000 experience
on staff than IBM/8086. I'm not sure I could test the 80386
fairly, since I don't know much about it.
--
Joel West (c/o UCSD)
Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
or ihnp4!crash!palomar!joel joel@palomar.cts.comwjb@goanna.oz (Warwick Bolam) (08/28/87)
I think the offensiveness of the Byte article stems from the fact that
it is heades "68020 vs 80386" when it should have been headed "Machine X
using 68020 vs. 80386". If you want to compare raw processor speed,
then don't do what BYTE did.
Warwick Bolam
Dept of Computing
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
124 La Trobe St
Melbourne, Victoria 3000
AUSTRALIA
PHONE: (03) 660 2348 OVERSEAS: +61 3 660 2348
ARPA: wjb%goanna.oz@seismo.css.gov BITNET: wjb%goanna.oz@CSNET-RELAY
CSNET: wjb@goanna.oz JANET: goanna.oz!wjb@ukc
UUCP: {enea,hplabs,mcvax,prlb2,seismo,ubc-vision,ukc}!munnari!goanna.oz!wjbmatthews@dartvax.UUCP (08/31/87)
In article <1069@goanna.oz> wjb@goanna.oz (Warwick Bolam) writes: > >I think the offensiveness of the Byte article stems from the fact that >it is heades "68020 vs 80386" when it should have been headed "Machine X >using 68020 vs. 80386". If you want to compare raw processor speed, >then don't do what BYTE did. > And if you want to compare commonly used systems, you still don't want to do what Byte did. Byte's benchmarks for the 80386 systems were compiled with a 80386-specific compiler, whereas 95+% of the 80386 systems in this world are spending their time running software developed for the 8086. This makes a big difference, since running old software reduces the 80386 to more or less the performance of an 80286 at equivalent clock speed. By contrast, in the 680x0 world there is not much penalty for running 68000 software. In fact, the September Byte article pointed out that a 68000 compiler (Lightspeed C) produced code that was 10-15% *faster* than that produced by Consulair's 68020 compiler. So Byte's approach would only be useful to someone who is using special software or developing their own, and those sorts of people are likely to run their own, more specific benchmarks. On the subject of compilers, has anyone benchmarked MPW Pascal 2.0 versus version 1.0? It would be interesting to see how much difference 2.0's peephole optimization makes on the standard benchmarks (sieve, dhrystones, etc.). Jim Matthews matthews@dartvax.uucp