jfh@killer.UUCP (John Haugh) (07/03/87)
In article <127@spdcc.COM>, dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: > ... > At least from the Dhrystone benchmarks reported below, we're well > into Sun 3 territory, if not beyond! Quite amazing... > > IBM PC/AT 8mhz IBM PC/AT with Intel Inboard 386/AT > at 16mhz, cache enabled > XENIX 286 XENIX 286 XENIX 286 XENIX 386 > 16-bit mem 16-bit mem 32-bit mem 32-bit mem > > Drystone 1.1 no reg reg no reg reg no reg reg no reg reg > 1084 1094 1957 1963 2906 2893 4603 4922 [ some munging to get rid of unneeded 1.0 kruft ] I really don't know about the claim that the 386 is now in Sun territory. I just benchmarked a Plexus P/95 (Yes, I know the list price is up arround $100K) and it came out somewheres near 5200 Dhrystones at 20Mhz. The 25Mhz box we bought should be over 6000. Hopefully Guy can get his Sun's to do alittle better than they have been doing. We should be getting our box in sometime this week. I finally got a system built the way *I* wanted rather than what the boss wanted to spend on one. Dual disks, plenty RAM, spare serial ports, the works. I just hope they can still afford to give me a raise next year :-) :-) :-). And just for kicks, I bounced this into comp.arch where it might be interesting for all of those RISC'y people to see ... And by the way - Xenix is not just an operating system for PC's. Tandy runs it on 68000's, I don't know about anyone else though ... - John.
mash@mips.UUCP (John Mashey) (07/05/87)
In article <1090@killer.UUCP> jfh@killer.UUCP (John Haugh) writes: ....on 386s getting into SUn-3 territory... >I really don't know about the claim that the 386 is now in Sun territory. >I just benchmarked a Plexus P/95 (Yes, I know the list price is up arround >$100K) and it came out somewheres near 5200 Dhrystones at 20Mhz. The >25Mhz box we bought should be over 6000.... >And just for kicks, I bounced this into comp.arch where it might be >interesting for all of those RISC'y people to see ... Hmmm. You might want to read Rick's current Dhrystone lists. I realize my login machine does only a "wimpy" 10-12K Dhrystones, but I've got terminal sessions going on this instant on RISC micros that do 18-22K Dhrystones, and they are NOT wimpy [about 5 minutes CPU time and <13 minutes real time for full 4.3+NFS kernel build from scratch. This is slower than the Amdahl "3 minutes".] SunRise / SPARC /Sun-4 should be announced this week, and they ought to be over 20K Dhrystones, too. Rick's end-of-July issue should be interesting: at least 2 different RISC microprocessors will be on the list FASTER than IBM 3081s, CRAY X-MPs [to be fair, not built for Dhrystone:-)]. They will be slower than IBM 3090s and Amdahl 5860s...this year... -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (07/13/87)
In article <1090@killer.UUCP> jfh@killer.UUCP (John Haugh) writes: >And by the way - Xenix is not just an operating system for PC's. Tandy >runs it on 68000's, I don't know about anyone else though ... I think Ohio Scientific runs a hacked version of Xenix on 68000's too. -- robert -- SNAIL: Robert Claeson, PVAB, P.O. Box 4040, S-171 04 Solna, Sweden UUCP: {seismo,mcvax,munnari}!enea!pvab!robert ARPA: enea!pvab!robert@seismo.arpa
ps@diab.UUCP (Per-Erik Sundberg) (07/14/87)
In article <201@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: >I think Ohio Scientific runs a hacked version of Xenix on 68000's too. They run D-NIX, which earlier was inspired by Xenix, but now has joined the SVID-compatible bandwagon. -- Per-Erik Sundberg, Diab Data AB SNAIL: Box 2029, S-183 02 Taby, Sweden ANALOG: +46 8-7680660 UUCP: seismo!mcvax!enea!diab!ps
campbell@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Mark Campbell) (07/15/87)
In article <225@diab.UUCP> ps@.UUCP (Per-Erik Sundberg) writes: >In article <201@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: > [...] Speaking of Xenix... Does anyone know why the 80286 and 80386-based Xenix machines perform the AIM 2.0 forks per second test so well? I've been seeing numbers lately of between 90 and 120 forks per second on several PC's. I'm wondering if the high numbers are a result of the 80x86 architecture, the Xenix kernel implementation of fork, the libraries, compiler, etc. Thanks. -- Mark Campbell {}!ncsu!ncrcae!sauron!campbell