rjk@mtuno.ATT.COM (Roberto Kohler) (01/11/90)
Does anyone out there know how the Mac II, Max IIx, and Mac II CX compare in performance with the 80386 based machines? I'm trying to find out the MIP rating of the Macs and how they compare with 386 based machines. Would the Mac IIx be equivalent to a 20 MHz 386 machine, etc. If you have any information please send it to me directly, and I will post a summary of the responses I get. Thanks, -------------- Roberto Kohler, AT&T Bell Labs, rjk@mtung.ATT.COM, (201)957-2759
jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) (01/12/90)
In article <2785@mtuno.ATT.COM> rjk@mtuno.ATT.COM (Roberto Kohler) writes: > >Does anyone out there know how the Mac II, Max IIx, and Mac II CX compare >in performance with the 80386 based machines? I'm trying to find out the >MIP rating of the Macs and how they compare with 386 based machines. >Would the Mac IIx be equivalent to a 20 MHz 386 machine, etc. On a related note, can anyone tell us if there are any differences between the Mac IIcx and IIx other than the IIx having 3 more slots and a 5.25 disk drive space? Are the chips and CPU board architecture identical? Has Apple fixed any bugs in the IIcx... fixes that the IIx doesn't have? I'm also told that the IIcx chips are all soldered in as opposed to the IIx which has it's chips socketed. SOunds like the IIx is easier to upgrade particularly if Apple comes out with 32 bit QD ROMS for the IIx. Comments? -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( ISR group account) (01/12/90)
In article <2785@mtuno.ATT.COM> rjk@mtuno.ATT.COM (Roberto Kohler) writes: >Does anyone out there know how the Mac II, Max IIx, and Mac II CX compare >in performance with the 80386 based machines? I'm trying to find out the >MIP rating of the Macs and how they compare with 386 based machines. >Would the Mac IIx be equivalent to a 20 MHz 386 machine, etc. I would reply via Email, but this is a VERY bad comparison. The idea of the mythical "MIP" is an idead propagated by computer sales(wo)men. A MIP is ONLY useful when comparing proccessors with the same instruction set. For example, in my Mac, I have a 16mhz 68020/68881 which can put out anywhere from 5 MIP->0.1 MIP depending on what it's doing. (These figures are off the top of my head, but I believe I'm pretty close that a NOP takes 3 cycles from start to completion and theres a 68881 instruc that takes about 60). Now, if a 386 machine was running at say, 20Mhz, you could see how many cycles each of it's instructions take up and get general MIP ratings for it's instructions. Now, for the big news: NONE OF WHAT I JUST SAID MATTERS AT ALL!!!! It doesn't matter how many MIPS my 68020 or your 80386 is doing; This is because you have to compare what each CPU has to do in order to get a job done. For example, if you have a very large array in memory, (>64kbytes) on a 68020 it is very easy to access any portion of it at any time, just address it. On a 80286, you have to go through arcane and miserable playing with "segment registers". This means you have to move a segmentregister to the stack, move an address to the stack, move the stack to segmentregister, access you data, and then move the stack back to the segmentregsiter. Four instructions for the 80286 where the 68020 requires one. There may be similar instances where the 80286 is better than the 68020. In any case, I'm just trying to show that comparing MIPS of proccessors is like comparing Apples and Peanuts - It don't work. There are standard ways of comparing speeds of computers - Like running the same program - one that does a simulation of typical tasks on both computers and timing it. But that only brings in the question of was each version written to take advantage of each CPU's particular (in)efficiencies?? And what about the quality of the compiler output?? Perhaps you are comparing the best compiler for CPU A to the worst for CPU B ??? THERE IS ONE TRUE TEST. put both machines side by side, each of them running the program that YOU WILL BE USING for most of your work, and have them do the same task. Do this task from start to finish on both machines several times, switching back and forth from one to the other between trials. This will let you get used to both and give you a good comparison. Whichever machine is faster for your task is the faster one. Any other comparison is total drivel. MIPS are for morons and DSPers Mike Schechter Institute for Sensory Research isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu -- Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. InterNet: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE
heberlei@kongur.ucdavis.edu (Louis Todd Heberlein) (01/13/90)
In article <1712@rodan.acs.syr.edu> isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >In article <2785@mtuno.ATT.COM> rjk@mtuno.ATT.COM (Roberto Kohler) writes: >>Does anyone out there know how the Mac II, Max IIx, and Mac II CX compare >>in performance with the 80386 based machines? I'm trying to find out the >>MIP rating of the Macs and how they compare with 386 based machines. >>Would the Mac IIx be equivalent to a 20 MHz 386 machine, etc. > >I would reply via Email, but this is a VERY bad comparison. The idea >of the mythical "MIP" is an idead propagated by computer sales(wo)men. >A MIP is ONLY useful when comparing proccessors with the same instruction >set. For example, in my Mac, I have a 16mhz 68020/68881 which can put I have one friend who told me that a machines MIPS is usually pro-rated to a VAX MIPS. For example, if a RISC chip can execute 30 millions instrucion per second but it takes on average 3 RISC instructions to equal that of one VAX, then the the chip is rated at 10 MIPS (not 30). I do not know how true this is. Most people I know, however, say MIPS stands for: Meaningless Index of Processor Speed Todd
rjk@mtuno.ATT.COM (Roberto Kohler) (01/15/90)
Thanks to all those that had something useful to say. -------------- Roberto Kohler, rjk@mtung.att.com The question was: >>Does anyone out there know how the Mac II, Max IIx, and Mac II CX compare >>in performance with the 80386 based machines? I'm trying to find out the >>MIP rating of the Macs and how they compare with 386 based machines. >>Would the Mac IIx be equivalent to a 20 MHz 386 machine, etc. The responses I received included: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Is the Mac II as fast as a 20 Mhz 386 This is great, the guy asks a simple question and 10k of absolute noise is generated no one answering him! Now it is true no 1 benchmark can indicate much, but in my experience the Mac II and Mac IIx both perform slightly better than an 80386 clone running a dos extender (20Mhz) The 80387 at 20mhz is somewhat faster than the 68882 running at 15+ Mhz, in my experience, except for some transcendental functions. Some Benchmarks: sieve (100 iterations) - 5 secs (386 20 Mhz) 4 secs (mac II and IIx) qsort (byte benchmark) - 18 secs (386 20 Mhz) 9 secs (mac II) 6 secs (mac iix) using Turbo C 2.0 for the 386 and MPW C for the Mac (using -mc68020 option) I do not have fp figures handy but the 387 was faster than the 68882 on the mac iix in most cases. They were fairly comparable though. In day to day use, mac applications on a Mac II or IIx tend to perform slightly faster than the MS-DOS applications running on 386's. If the MS-DOS application is text only, sometimes it feels faster. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I would reply via Email, but this is a VERY bad comparison. The idea >of the mythical "MIP" is an idead propagated by computer sales(wo)men. >A MIP is ONLY useful when comparing proccessors with the same instruction >set. For example, in my Mac, I have a 16mhz 68020/68881 which can put I have one friend who told me that a machines MIPS is usually pro-rated to a VAX MIPS. For example, if a RISC chip can execute 30 millions instrucion per second but it takes on average 3 RISC instructions to equal that of one VAX, then the the chip is rated at 10 MIPS (not 30). I do not know how true this is. Most people I know, however, say MIPS stands for: Meaningless Index of Processor Speed ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- My experience has been that, because they use their MIPs in different ways, it's not very useful to compare things like that. Byte ran such a benchmark a year or so ago, though: fastest 80386 vs. fastest 68030. Your library should have it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't believe that any of the 3 machines you mentioned are in the same ballpark as the 386 machines (especially @ 25MHz). They are all 16MHz machines, for one thing. I recall seeing the Mac II as being in the 2-3 MIP range; this would make the other two in the 2+ to 4 MIP range most likely. (probably near the middle of those ranges). The Mac IIci might approach 5 or so... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry I have no info, but do post a summary or let me personally know of any results you get. My friend and I always debate the issue. (I have an SE/30 and he has a 386 machine.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- One thing to keep in mind - the newer Macs come with a math coprocessor, but very few (or no) '386 machines come with a coprocessor. The 8387 costs about $400. Of course, if you don't do much "math" you won't care. This complicates "MIPS" ratings, since for floating point and transcendentals, at least, what you get out of the box is not "equal". I find the older macs Plus, SE slow. The newer ones (SE/30, IIcx, IIci) are pretty fast. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The original MAC II is about 1/4 to 1/3 the speed of a current generation 386 machine. This is by my own very extensive tests. I have read that the latest MAC II systems are about twice as fast as the original Mac II. In any case, the fastest 68030 systems are not as fast as the fastest 386 PC clones, so it is extremely safe to say that the latest 386 will be faster than the latest Mac. They are no longer four times as fast, though. The latest Mac II would not be as fast as a good 20 MHz PC clone. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A straight MIPS comparison between Mac II machines and 80386 machines is somewhat problematic-- the Mac has practically zero overhead from its windowing environment where DOS & OS/2 machines lose a lot of performance to their windowing interfaces. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------