[comp.sys.next] NeXTstation's speed?

tj@xn.ll.mit.edu (Thomas E. Jones) (01/05/91)

I and a friend were wondering about this new NeXTstation.  The sales brocures
look great.  They say it's capable of processing at 15 MIPS and 2 MFLOPS.
That sounds like it should be a peak speed (salespeople talking there.)

Has anyone done any real benchmarking?  How does this compare to a sparkstation
or a Sun 3?  MIT people can get an 8 MEG NeXTstation with 105MB and software
for $3450.  This isn't terribly different than what we can get for a 
sparkstation, which is is said to have 15.8 Dhrystone MIPS, and 1.7 MFLOPS
double-precision LINPACK.  I get the idea Sun is leveling with us, not
just telling us maximum theoretical speed we can never acheive, but the
real Benchmarks (they also say 10.0 SPECmarks, which I've never heard of.)

If anyone has really used a Sun3 or a Sparkstation, I'd really like to
hear from you.  I figure the people who shelled out big money for a NeXT
station wouldn't want to admit it's slow, so someone who has alternated
between the NeXT and a RISC machine of some sort would be more unbiased.

			- Thomas E. Jones
			 tj@xn.ll.mit.edu


-- 
tj@xn.ll.mit.edu or tj@ll-xn.arpa          (one of these should work)
Thomas E. Jones, home (617) 924-8326 work (617) 981-5093

riordanmr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Mark Riordan) (01/05/91)

In article <1991Jan4.182011.28485@xn.ll.mit.edu>, tj@xn.ll.mit.edu (Thomas E. Jones) says:
>Has anyone done any real benchmarking?  How does this compare to a sparkstation
>or a Sun 3?                

I haven't done any *real* benchmarking yet, but I've been planning on doing so.
However, since you ask, here are the results of some not-so-real benchmarks:

All benchmarks are number of seconds of user time as reported by "time".

pi.c -- program to compute Pi using probablistic techniques.  Lots of floating
        point multiplies and divides, some integer, some subroutine calling.

SPARCstation 1:  44.6 seconds
NeXTstation:     20.4 seconds
Convex C240:      7.5 seconds

chkprime.c -- program to verify that a given number is prime.  Run on a 342-bit
              prime number.  Lots of integer arithmetic, especially multiplies.

SPARCstation 1:  232.1 seconds
NeXTstation:     114.2 seconds
Convex C240:      49.0 seconds

newdes.c -- program to encrypt a file and uuencode it.  Lots of logical
            operations.  No floating point, no integer multiplies or
            divides to speak of.  Fair number of function calls.  Run on a 200KB file. 
            (Note:  *not* a DES implementation.)

SPARCstation 1:  2.1 seconds
NeXTstation:     1.0 seconds
Convex C240:     2.4 seconds

The Convex would have done better if I'd given it some vectorizable
applications.  So far, the NeXTstation has held its own in these
tests, though.  None of the tests is big enough to flush a cache.
That's why I say the benchmarks aren't "real".  Caveat emptor, etc.
Further note:  I'm using the standard SunOS 4.1 C compiler, not the
extra-cost SPARCcompiler usually used for benchmarks.  All
compiles done with -O.

Mark Riordan  Michigan State University   riordanmr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu

mahesh@caradhras.cc.nd.edu (Mahesh Subramanya) (01/05/91)

Over the last year, I've had extensive use of a SS1/SS1+, a NeXT, a 
DecStation 3100, a Mac IIci, a Mac IIfx, and an IBM R/600 Model 530.
I've had these (in various combinations) on my desk at one point or 
the other for extended periods.  Also, I've had a Nstation on my desk
for around a week.  Tho I haven't run some of the "tried and proven" bmarks
on these boxes, I have done quite a significant amount of "real world" usage
on these boxes.  To make it short and sweet, the order of speed is

ss1 <  ss1+ < DecStation < Nstation < R/6000 320 < R/6000 530

Within this, the most obvious performace gap is in the SS1s.  The 
SPARCstations seem to be the least powerful of the lot by a rather large
factor. In fact, from my impression, tho' they *do* achieve their 1.4/1.7 
LINPACK ratings, they usually average 1 MFLOP on most other things.  By and
large, SPARCS are rather slow beasties compared to their brethren.

The Decstations are usually around 1.5 times faster than the SS1/1+.  THe
surprising result was that in most of my usage, the Nstation was faster than the DecStation!! (also corroborated by some chap in comp.benchmarks using
Mathematica bmarks!).

  Definitely not to my surprise, the R/6000s blew the doors off the rest
of the competition.


 
-- 
************************************************************************
Mahesh Subramanya                     INTERNET: mahesh@caradhras.cc.nd.edu
Senior Analyst                        
Office of University Computing        NeXT:     mahesh@numenor.next.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame              Voice:    (219) 239-5600  x6421
Notre Dame,  IN  46556
************************************************************************

bchen@nntp-server.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bing-Qing Chen) (01/05/91)

From article <1991Jan4.182011.28485@xn.ll.mit.edu>, by tj@xn.ll.mit.edu (Thomas E. Jones):
> I and a friend were wondering about this new NeXTstation.  The sales brocures
> look great.  They say it's capable of processing at 15 MIPS and 2 MFLOPS.
> That sounds like it should be a peak speed (salespeople talking there.)
> 
> Has anyone done any real benchmarking?  How does this compare to a sparkstation
> or a Sun 3?  MIT people can get an 8 MEG NeXTstation with 105MB and software
> for $3450.  This isn't terribly different than what we can get for a 
> sparkstation, which is is said to have 15.8 Dhrystone MIPS, and 1.7 MFLOPS
> double-precision LINPACK.  I get the idea Sun is leveling with us, not
> just telling us maximum theoretical speed we can never acheive, but the
> ....

I ran double-precision LINPACK benchmark on both NeXTstation and Sparc 1+.
I got 1.25 Mflops on Sparc with the cc supplied, 1.31 Mflops with gcc
on Sparc and 1.53 Mflops on NeXTstation with the gcc supplied. Although
NeXTstation is quite fast in doing floating point multiply and divide, it
is very slow doing the operations not implemented in 68040 hardware like
log, exp, log, sin, cos etc. These operations generally ran 50-100% slower
than 25MHz 68882 and 2-3 times slower than Sparc 1+. I wonder if this is due
to some bugs in NeXT operation system because Motorola claimed 25MHz 68040
is supposed to do all those operations faster than 33MHz 68882.

------------
Bing Chen
NeXT mail: bchen@pooh.caltech.edu