ed@plx.UUCP (Ed Chaban) (11/18/86)
There has been much screaming about which chip is faster 80386 or 68020. Recently, I received benchmark data from Neal Nelson & Associates. This benchmark showed results from a Compaq 386. I compared this data to the results from a Tower32 The 386 was SIGNIFICANTLY *SLOWER* than the '020 in LONG INTEGER MATH while it was virtually *EQUAL* to the '020 in SHORT INTEGER MATH. Don't say it was the memory because the "String Copy and Compare" test was identical too. So, What's the story intel? What do I have to do to make the 386 beat the '020 Hmmmmm??? Does anyone out there have some 386 data they care to share? Whetstones/Dhrystones perhaps? -ed- sun!plx!ed
mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) (11/18/86)
In article <324@plx.UUCP> ed@plx.UUCP (Ed Chaban) writes: >There has been much screaming about which chip is faster 80386 or >68020. Recently, I received benchmark data from Neal Nelson & Associates. >This benchmark showed results from a Compaq 386. I compared this data to >the results from a Tower32 > >The 386 was SIGNIFICANTLY *SLOWER* than the '020 in LONG INTEGER MATH >while it was virtually *EQUAL* to the '020 in SHORT INTEGER MATH. >Don't say it was the memory because the "String Copy and Compare" >test was identical too. > >So, What's the story intel? What do I have to do to make the >386 beat the '020 Hmmmmm??? Does anyone out there have some 386 data >they care to share? Whetstones/Dhrystones perhaps? Is disinformation a possibility here? You know, get the rumor out before anyone knows for sure which is faster, thus grabbing a little head start in the race? Yes? No? -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mark Steven Jeghers - the living incarnation of "Deep-Thought" | | ("You won't like the answer ... you didn't ask it very well.") | | | | {ihnp4,cbosgd,lll-lcc,lll-crg}|{dual,ptsfa}!cogent!mark | | ^^^^^^-------recommended------^^^^^ | | | | Cogent Software Solutions can not be held responsible for anything said | | by the above person since they have no control over him in the first place | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs) (11/18/86)
> Recently, I received benchmark data from Neal Nelson & Associates. > This benchmark showed results from a Compaq 386. I compared this data to > the results from a Tower32 > > The 386 was SIGNIFICANTLY *SLOWER* than the '020 in LONG INTEGER MATH > while it was virtually *EQUAL* to the '020 in SHORT INTEGER MATH. > Don't say it was the memory because the "String Copy and Compare" > test was identical too. What was the sofware environment? As far as I know at this point Compaq is shipping the Compaq 386 only with MS-DOS. This uses 16 bit compilers and 286 programming models. In other words it treats the 386 as a fast 8088 with all arithmetic being done 16 bits at a time. If the OS environment was UNIX V.3 for the 386 then I would want to know more about what the benchmarks are. If you have the environment information I would appreciate seeing it. -- ------ "Ever notice how your mental image of someone you've known only by phone turns out to be wrong? And on a computer net you don't even have a voice..." tomk@intsc.UUCP Tom Kohrs Regional Architecture Specialist Intel - Santa Clara
ed@plx.UUCP (Ed Chaban) (11/20/86)
In article <64@cogent.UUCP> Mark Steven Jeghers writes: > In article <324@plx.UUCP> ed@plx.UUCP (Ed Chaban) writes: > >There has been much screaming about which chip is faster 80386 or > >68020. Recently, I received benchmark data from Neal Nelson & Associates. > >This benchmark showed results from a Compaq 386. I compared this data to > >the results from a Tower32 > > > >The 386 was SIGNIFICANTLY *SLOWER* than the '020 in LONG INTEGER MATH > >while it was virtually *EQUAL* to the '020 in SHORT INTEGER MATH. > >Don't say it was the memory because the "String Copy and Compare" > >test was identical too. > > > > Is disinformation a possibility here? You know, get the rumor out > before anyone knows for sure which is faster, thus grabbing a little > head start in the race? Yes? No? Only if you think Neal Nelson has an axe to grind. So far as I can tell, Nelson is very objective in his benchmarking. If you are accusing *ME* Mark, I'd have to be INSANE to misquote published data. As for "Head Start" it is obvious that Motorola *ALWAYS* had it. I personally don't give a sh*t if Intel's chip is faster or slower, all I wanna know is what is the reason for the long/short integer differances. -ed- Ed Chaban Plexus Computers Inc. Phone: (408) 943-2226 Net: sun!plx!ed
jsgray@watmath.UUCP (Jan Gray) (11/20/86)
In article <404@intsc.UUCP> tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs) writes: >> The 386 was SIGNIFICANTLY *SLOWER* than the '020 in LONG INTEGER MATH >> while it was virtually *EQUAL* to the '020 in SHORT INTEGER MATH. >What was the sofware environment? As far as I know at this point Compaq >is shipping the Compaq 386 only with MS-DOS. This uses 16 bit compilers >and 286 programming models. In other words it treats the 386 as a fast 8088 >with all arithmetic being done 16 bits at a time. If the OS environment >was UNIX V.3 for the 386 then I would want to know more about what the >benchmarks are. Who is selling UNIX V.3 for the 386? Can you even buy a C compiler which supports 32 bit mode? Jan Gray jsgray@watmath University of Waterloo 519-885-5921
ben@catnip.UUCP (11/27/86)
In article <3428@watmath.UUCP> jsgray@watmath.UUCP (Jan Gray) writes: >Who is selling UNIX V.3 for the 386? Can you even buy a C compiler >which supports 32 bit mode? The Santa Cruz Operation is selling its 386 toolkit to people who want to develop software to run on Xenix/386. The package supposedly includes a C compiler which supports the i80386 modes, and a minimal 386 kernel to test the software. The cost is $395, but the package requires that you already own Xenix/286 v 2.1.3. -- Ben Broder {ihnp4,decvax} !hjuxa!catnip!ben {houxm,topaz}/
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/30/86)
In article <3428@watmath.UUCP>, jsgray@watmath.UUCP (Jan Gray) writes: > > Who is selling UNIX V.3 for the 386? Can you even buy a C compiler > which supports 32 bit mode? > Interactive Systems (argh, what a pain) should be finishing up the System V port for the 386 any day now. Last I heard they had finished it for the MULTIBUS I system and were working on the Multibus II 386 card. -Ron
vance@sci.UUCP (Vance Turner) (12/06/86)
In article <499@brl-sem.ARPA>, ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > In article <3428@watmath.UUCP>, jsgray@watmath.UUCP (Jan Gray) writes: > > Who is selling UNIX V.3 for the 386?