tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (11/04/90)
bill davidsen <davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com> writes: > Note that the 486 is about 2.6 times faster than the 386 for most > things, because the clock counts for almost all instructions have been > reduced. I keep seeing a wide variance in the 486/386 speed ratio: from about 3x all the way down to about 1.5x (in PCMag benchmarks). Have 386 and 486 machines been SPECmarked? If so, how can I find out which manufacturers' machines, and what the results were? Thanks in advance... [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
jimf@idayton.field.intel.com (Jim Fister) (11/04/90)
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >I keep seeing a wide variance in the 486/386 speed ratio: from about 3x >all the way down to about 1.5x (in PCMag benchmarks). Have 386 and 486 >machines been SPECmarked? If so, how can I find out which manufacturers' >machines, and what the results were? I believe that the standard Intel answer is that the 486(TM) is about 1.5 to 2x faster than a 386(TM) at the same clock rate, depending on code and system blah blah blah. The math tends to run about 4x of a 387(TM). Intel has SPECs, but I've never seen them. The best thing to do is to bench your own code on the machines that you would use. That's about the only useful benchmark that I've ever seen. Greetings from the rocking metropolis. Jimf