dbraun@cadev5.intel.com (Doug Braun ~) (11/22/90)
Can anyone suggest any benchmark programs for CP/M computers, such as Dhrystone, or something like the Norton "SI" program? I guess the problem with Dhrystone is that it is really a compiler/machine benchmark, and there is no standard C compiler for CP/M. To get things rolling: My Z280 system and the Code Works Q/C Compiler, modified to generate Z280 code, give just about 500 Dhrystones/second. Doug Braun Intel Corp CAD 408 765-4279 dbraun@scdt.intel.com or maybe: / decwrl \ | hplabs | -| oliveb |- !intelca!mipos3!cadev6!dbraun | amd | \ qantel /
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (11/26/90)
In article <1064@inews.intel.com> dbraun@cadev5.UUCP (Doug Braun ~) writes: | To get things rolling: My Z280 system and the Code Works Q/C Compiler, | modified to generate Z280 code, give just about 500 Dhrystones/second. Could you post or mail that benchmark? I would love to try it on my CP/M emulator, to see how fast it runs in a Z80 emulation run by an 8088 emulation. I have run an Apple ][ emulation under that and still had reasonable throughput. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
tilmann@mcshh.hanse.de (Tilmann Reh) (12/09/90)
Doug Braun writes about CP/M Benchmarks. He's absolutely right: the problem is that there is no standard (not only C) compiler for CP/M. So, for testing the machine itself, we should at least take the most usual compiler around here. I guess, that is Turbo-Pascal 3.0. Perhaps the MBasic-Interpreter (though a hack) could serve for this purpose, too. So, if we use a standard set of test routines (i.e. for integer and real arithmetic, and for I/O on ramdisk/harddisk/floppy) and compile them with exactly the same compiler (Turbo-3), the results should be comparable. Although I use a Z280 too, I think it's not right to use modified compilers for benchmarks (except when the compliers are exactly the same, and we just want to compare some Z280 with each other). In that means, I'm using such a benchmark (published in c't magazine some years ago) for a long time. I might post the sources on the net, if there is interest. Tilmann Reh tilmann@mcshh.uucp tilmann@mcshh.hanse.de
pevans@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Phillip Evans) (12/12/90)
> So, if we use a standard set of test routines (i.e. for integer and real > arithmetic, and for I/O on ramdisk/harddisk/floppy) and compile them with > exactly the same compiler (Turbo-3), the results should be comparable. > Although I use a Z280 too, I think it's not right to use modified compilers > for benchmarks (except when the compliers are exactly the same, and we > just want to compare some Z280 with each other). > In that means, I'm using such a benchmark (published in c't magazine some > years ago) for a long time. I might post the sources on the net, if there > is interest. > > Tilmann Reh tilmann@mcshh.uucp > tilmann@mcshh.hanse.de I'm interested. Let's have the code.
tilmann@mcshh.hanse.de (Tilmann Reh) (02/10/91)
Hello. Some time ago I posted a benchmark program in Turbo Pascal along with the values resulting with my Z280 system. Anyone tested with other systems? results? Greetings, Tilmann