joechung@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Joseph) (07/10/90)
A friend of mine said the other day that Motorola rates its CPU's twice as fast. So in effect, my Amiga's running at a little over 3.5 MHZ. One of the reason he sights is that: Motorola & Intel are about the same level in technology, and yet Motorola has come out with a 50MHZ chip already while Intel is still around 33MHZ. Therefore, the actual speed of the Motorola chips are 1/2 what the manufacturer says. No flames please. I just want to know if what he said is true. I'm a little surprised the hear that my 68000 actually runs at 3.5 compared to an Intel. -jc ================================================================= | Joseph Chung | This area under construction | | joechung@ocf.berkeley.edu | | =================================================================
dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) (07/11/90)
joechung@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Joseph) writes: >A friend of mine said the other day that Motorola rates its CPU's twice as >fast. So in effect, my Amiga's running at a little over 3.5 MHZ. I don`t know where he got his information from but he`s wrong. You`re 68000 cpu is running at 7.1MHZ. >One of the reason he sights is that: Motorola & Intel are about the same >level in technology, and yet Motorola has come out with a 50MHZ chip already >while Intel is still around 33MHZ. Therefore, the actual speed of the >Motorola chips are 1/2 what the manufacturer says. Motorola has 30MHZ 68030's,but were able to get the speed up to 50MHZ.Just because Intel can't do it doesn't mean Motorola can't. That rating really is just the maximum clock speed the chip will run at. The really important rating is MIPS.MIPS are how many instructions a machine runs per second.Higher clock speeds mean higher mips. BUT a 68030 at 33MHZ and an Intell 80386 at 33MHZ will not have the same mips performance.Lacking the apporite data book right now i can't tell u what they are,maybe somebody else can.All this means is look past the clock speed when u look at a chip.MegHz's don't make a chip,the just help speed thigs up. James Dusek Motorola FSD.
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (07/11/90)
By any chance does your friend own an IBM? -- John M. Adams --**-- Professional Student on the six-year plan! /// Internet: jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu -or- vladimir@maple.circa.ufl.edu /// "We'll always be together, together in electric dreams" Tangerine Dream \\V// Cosysop of BBS:42; Amiga BBS FIDOnet 1:3612/42. 904-438-4803 (Florida) \X/
eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (07/12/90)
Someone is feeding you a load of S**t. There are lots of
benchmarks, and lots of ways to organize memory systems, but assuming
that you have two well designed boxes, a 68030 at the same clock speed
as a 80386 will bench about 40-50% faster. Fifty MHz 68030 boxes
really do scream. The numbers I have for Amigas show the 3000 (with 80
ns SCRAMs) at 7.7 MIPS, the 50 MHz GVP board (with, I think 40 ns
SRAMs) at about 15. A typical 25 MHz 386 box, with cache, comes in
between 5 and 6 MIPS running MS-DOS, and between 4 and 5 MIPS using
Xenix.
Time to don my asbestos underwear, as everyone takes aim using
their benchmarks on their particular computers, with their favorite
compilers, etc. But what the heck, I've been through it all before.
--
Robert I. Eachus
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...lee@sed170.HAC.COM (John Lee) (07/12/90)
In article <1990Jul10.055108.22796@agate.berkeley.edu> joechung@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Joeseph Chung) writes: >A friend of mine said the other day that Motorola rates its CPU's twice as >fast. So in effect, my Amiga's running at a little over 3.5 MHZ. > >One of the reason he sights is that: Motorola & Intel are about the same >level in technology, and yet Motorola has come out with a 50MHZ chip already >while Intel is still around 33MHZ. Therefore, the actual speed of the >Motorola chips are 1/2 what the manufacturer says. [...] Silly, silly, silly... Your friend is wrong. The speed ratings on a chip is the maximum guarenteed clock rate the chip will accept and is related to the chip design and manufacturing process, among other things. Motorola does not divide the clock rate by two internally so that they can stamp a higher clock rating on the package. (The clock actually _is_ divided internally (I think) but to generate different on-chip clocks. Parts of the chip run at the full clock rate.) The maximum clock rate of Intel chips may be lower because of different and possibly more difficult specifications and the difficult design and manufacturing process problems needed to match the specifications. This is not to say that one is better than another. I'll leave that discussion to comp.processors.wars. The relative speed of two different processors cannot, repeat, *cannot* be compared using clock rates. One chip may use fewer clock cycles than another to execute an equivalent instruction, thus the former running at a lower clock rate can actually execute instructions faster than latter at a higher clock rate. Hence the "MIPS" (Millions of Instructions Per Second) ratings. Even then there is much controversy as to what a MIPS comparision between processors actually means between different processors. This not meant to be a flame--I apologize if it appears so. --John Lee ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The crew faces deadly GURUs! Next time on AmigaDOS: The Next Generation. +--------+ John Lee | HUGHES | +--------+ ARPAnet: jhlee@hac2arpa.hac.com Hughes Aircraft Company The above opinions are those of the user and not of those of this machine.
joechung@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Joseph) (07/12/90)
Thanks to all who responded to my question concerning the speed of the two processors. I relayed the responses to my friend and he doesn't want to continue the argument. :) -jc ================================================================= | Joseph Chung | This area under construction | | joechung@ocf.berkeley.edu | | =================================================================
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (07/12/90)
joechung@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Joseph) writes: >A friend of mine said the other day that Motorola rates its CPU's twice as >fast. So in effect, my Amiga's running at a little over 3.5 MHZ. Don't let them confuse you. The fact is that somewhere in the system you must have a master crystal oscillator. And this one indeed clocks at a multifold of the frequency the processor actually runs on. In the Amiga, this master crystal is (I believe) somewhere around 28 MHz. This is divided by 4, so that the processor clocks indeed at 7.xx MHz. More important is, what can a processor do in one of these clock cycles? Or: how many clock cycles does it need to complete one machine instruction? And here you have the differences between chips of different producers and newer versions. So the 68030 is so much faster than the 68000, because it a) can work at higher clock rates and b) needs fewer clock cycles for one instruction. And here is also where the wars between Intel and Motorola start, which brand is more effective in this way. (I don't want to contribute to this war.) -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ rutgers!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
rick@tmiuv0.uucp (07/12/90)
In article <1990Jul10.055108.22796@agate.berkeley.edu>, joechung@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Joseph) writes: > A friend of mine said the other day that Motorola rates its CPU's twice as > fast. So in effect, my Amiga's running at a little over 3.5 MHZ. > > One of the reason he sights is that: Motorola & Intel are about the same > level in technology, and yet Motorola has come out with a 50MHZ chip already > while Intel is still around 33MHZ. Therefore, the actual speed of the > Motorola chips are 1/2 what the manufacturer says. > > No flames please. I just want to know if what he said is true. I'm a little > surprised the hear that my 68000 actually runs at 3.5 compared to an Intel. > > -jc > ================================================================= > | Joseph Chung | This area under construction | > | joechung@ocf.berkeley.edu | | > ================================================================= Heheheh! I take it that your friend is an Intelite. No, that's not correct. The clock speed for the Motorola parts are legit. If you have a 50Mhz 68040, you feed it a 50Mhz clock. If you have a 33Mhz 80386, you feed it a 33Mhz clock. He may be referring to throughput, which is the amount of work that a processor can do in a fixed length of time. Most commonly, this is referred to in MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) or using some other benchmark such as Dhrystones (a measure of computational power). Due to architectural differences between processors and the way they're used in a given computer, these measurements all have to be taken with a grain of salt, particularly MIPS ratings. The most common misuse of MIPS is comparing a RISC processor (such as the Sun SPARC or Motorola 88000) against a CISC processor (such as the 680x0 or 80x86). True, most RISC processors have a higher MIPS rating (they execute more instructions per second), but each instruction on a RISC does far less work, requiring more instructions to be executed to perform a particular task than a CISC processor would. Better benchmarks are things like Dhrystones, which measure how many computational results per second you get, and essentially disregards RISC/CISC differences. It's the results and when they get there that matter to me, not now the results got there. Oh, by the way, in case you don't know these abbreviations... RISC: Reduced Instruction Set Computer CISC: Complex Instruction Set Computer For your own peace of mind, computationally, an Intel 80386 at 33Mhz has roughly the same computational power as a Motorola 68030 at 25Mhz. I have not proven this absolutely, but in my experience, it's a fairly close call. I MUCH prefer the Motorola method of doing things, from a programmer's point of view (and that is what I be -- a programmer). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [- O] Rick Stevens ? EMail: uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick -or- uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop V CIS: 75006,1355 (75006.1355@compuserve.com from Internet) "I'm tellin' ya, Valiant! Da whole ting stinks like yesterday's diapers!" - Baby Herman in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/17/90)
In article <1990Jul10.055108.22796@agate.berkeley.edu> joechung@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Joeseph Chung) writes: >A friend of mine said the other day that Motorola rates its CPU's twice as >fast. So in effect, my Amiga's running at a little over 3.5 MHZ. Your friend is on the right track, but obviously confused about the details. Basically, it's meaningless to compare the clock speeds of different chip architectures without knowing both architectures. The clock speed has little to do with how long the actual chip takes to perform an operation. For at least older CPUs, one actually meaningful number is the bus speed -- how many clocks does the CPU take to run a single cycle on its memory bus. A 68000, an 8086, and several other CPUs of the same vintage take 4 processor clock cycles to run one memory cycle. The Z-80 runs a 3 clock cycle to fetch an instruction, a 4 clock cycle to fetch data. The 6502 takes a single clock for its minimum memory cycle. So while you can figure that an 8MHz 68000 and 8MHz 8086 talk to memory at about the same speed, an 8MHz 6502, if such a chip existed, would be talking to memory more like a 32MHz 68000. >One of the reason he sights is that: Motorola & Intel are about the same >level in technology, and yet Motorola has come out with a 50MHZ chip already >while Intel is still around 33MHZ. Therefore, the actual speed of the >Motorola chips are 1/2 what the manufacturer says. He's pretty confused here. Motorola and Intel chips of the same basic generation are going about the same memory speed at the same clock rate. For example, both the 80386 and the 68030 take two clock cycles to access memory. Motorola is indeed making faster 68030s than Intel makes 80386s, and they really do go faster. Some RISC chips actually handle one memory cycle per clock cycle, and the burst mode found on 68030s, 68040s, and 80486s lets these chips fetch 4 longwords in as little as 5 clocks, coming close to 1 word per clock. And memory fetch is only part of the question. Many CPU operations are internal to the part, and some happen in fewer clocks. The 68040, for instance, takes only one clock to fetch from internal cache, while the 68030 takes the standard two clocks for internal cache fetches (both can fetch from both caches at the same time). >No flames please. I just want to know if what he said is true. I'm a little >surprised the hear that my 68000 actually runs at 3.5 compared to an Intel. To sum up, an 8MHz 68000 runs much the same kind of cycle as an 8MHz 8086. An 8MHz 68020 can hit memory 1.5 times as fast, an 8MHz 68030 or 80386 can hit memory 2 times as fast, and a 8MHz 68030 or similar chip can hit burst mode memory nearly 4 times as fast as the 68000 or 8086. Of course, since the 68030 has a 32 bit bus, this is actually a data transfer rate closer to 8 times faster. >-jc -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "I have been given the freedom to do as I see fit" -REM
FVEST@DUCVAX.AUBURN.EDU (Floyd Vest) (07/17/90)
"James P. Dusek" <dusek@motcid.uucp> wrote: >The really important rating is MIPS.MIPS are how many instructions a >machine runs per second.Higher clock speeds mean higher mips. Didn't I see you in an Apple commercial? :-) -- Floyd Vest Auburn University ##### fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu #####
jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org ( Staff OACIS) (07/18/90)
In article <13229@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >its minimum memory cycle. So while you can figure that an 8MHz 68000 and >8MHz 8086 talk to memory at about the same speed, an 8MHz 6502, if such a >chip existed, would be talking to memory more like a 32MHz 68000. Well, it's not 8MHZ, but the Lynx runs with a 4MHZ 65C02 (sorry, had to get a plug in :-) -- John Meissen .............................. Oregon Advanced Computing Institute jmeissen@oacis.org (Internet) | "That's the remarkable thing about life; ..!sequent!oacis!jmeissen (UUCP) | things are never so bad that they can't jmeissen (BIX) | get worse." - Calvin & Hobbes
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (07/18/90)
In article <569@oregon.oacis.org> jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org ( Staff OACIS) writes: >In article <13229@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >>its minimum memory cycle. So while you can figure that an 8MHz 68000 and >>8MHz 8086 talk to memory at about the same speed, an 8MHz 6502, if such a >>chip existed, would be talking to memory more like a 32MHz 68000. > >Well, it's not 8MHZ, but the Lynx runs with a 4MHZ 65C02 (sorry, had to get >a plug in :-) I always thought the Lynx runs a 68000 and they need Amigas to create the software for it? Or is it only because of the HAM display? But as an old 6502 fanatic (I looove my CBM 8032!) I have to throw in this: I read in an article about one world championship of chess computers that the near winner was a 6502 with 11 MHz, and hear: it was said not to be a chip but redesigned in discrete TTL logic! (In the end it lost against a full blown 68020, it's 2 or 3 years ago). Also in the new Apple Mac IIfx they say they have even TWO 6502 as parts of their peripheral controllers running at 10 MHz. I would really like to boost my old 8032 to 10 MHz... -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ rutgers!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/18/90)
In article <569@oregon.oacis.org> jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org ( Staff OACIS) writes: >In article <13229@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >>its minimum memory cycle. So while you can figure that an 8MHz 68000 and >>8MHz 8086 talk to memory at about the same speed, an 8MHz 6502, if such a >>chip existed, would be talking to memory more like a 32MHz 68000. >Well, it's not 8MHZ, but the Lynx runs with a 4MHZ 65C02 (sorry, had to get >a plug in :-) Yup, I knew about that one. The A2232 card (the Commodore multi-port serial card) uses a 3.56MHz 4502 (magic new CMOS 6502 compatible that could be going quite a bit faster) to manage its 7 6551 ACIAs, so that the 680x0 doesn't get bogged down with interrupts when you have all 7 channels going at 19,200 baud. The 6502 is, and probably will be, the home game machine CPU of choice for some time to come -- it's in C64, Lynx, Atari 2600, Atari 800, Nintendo, etc. It also makes a pretty handy microcontroller type thing, especially if you can make them yourself :-) >John Meissen .............................. Oregon Advanced Computing Institute -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "I have been given the freedom to do as I see fit" -REM
ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) (07/20/90)
Distribution: Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of Melbourne Keywords: In article <9007170742.AA16055@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> FVEST@DUCVAX.AUBURN.EDU (Floyd Vest) writes: > >"James P. Dusek" <dusek@motcid.uucp> wrote: > >>The really important rating is MIPS.MIPS are how many instructions a >>machine runs per second.Higher clock speeds mean higher mips. > >Didn't I see you in an Apple commercial? :-) Speak of Apple commercials (sorry, may not be that relevant), I'll show you, to the best of my ability, the Mac ads being shown in Australia. If you don't want to see it, hit 'n' now SCENE : Office full of computers, many other computers, and one Mac. Boss overlooking the office, assistant comes over to him. Assist: You've been staring out there all day. What are you doing? Boss: Testing. A: Testing what? B: Computers. I'm trying to figure out which is the most powerful. A: That's easy. The one with the most - Megabytes, MIPS, you know. B: No, I don't think so. I think the most powerful is the one that people actually use. (cut away to a lady kicking somebody off the Mac) (Apple logo and a short voiceover) A: That's not a fair comparison. People like using the Mac! That's the marketing we see down here. The Amiga marketing is, ummmm, (let's see, television started in 1956, have I seen an ad since then? Oh yeah, one just before christmas, with John Laws). In a nutshell, it doesn't exist. Plenty of Commodore PC ads, but no Amiga ads. Unless the ads you see are vastly different to those here, I don't think that quote came from an Apple ad. Followups to c.s.a please. Ian P.S. I quoted the ad from memory - to any other Australians, don't correct me unless I made a SERIOUS transcription error. And mail me about it. Ian Rowlands | ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (main) Dept. of Electrical Engineering, | ianr@gondwana.ecr.mu.oz.au (including Computer Science) | ianr@munmurra.cs.mu.oz.au (to 7/90) University of Melbourne | (How can you have a funny quote in only 4 li
wizard@sosaria.imp.com (Chris Brand) (07/21/90)
In article <3942@azure8.UUCP> dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) says: > BUT a 68030 at 33MHZ and an Intell 80386 at 33MHZ will not > have the same mips performance.Lacking the apporite data book right > now i can't tell u what they are,maybe somebody else can.All this means > is look past the clock speed when u look at a chip.MegHz's don't make > a chip,the just help speed thigs up. Yes! I'd love to see once exactly how fast all these chips are (80286, 68000, 80386, 68020, 80486, 68040). For example, I've heard once that a standard 68000 Amiga has about the same computing power as a 12 Mhz 80286. Is this true? How about a fast 386/486? What does it take to blow them out of the water? -- ------------------------------------ Chris Brand - wizard@sosaria.imp.com "Justice is the possession and doing of what one is entitled to" - Platon ------------------------------------
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/24/90)
In article <3384.AA3384@sosaria> wizard@sosaria.imp.com (Chris Brand) writes: >In article <3942@azure8.UUCP> dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) says: >> BUT a 68030 at 33MHZ and an Intell 80386 at 33MHZ will not >> have the same mips performance. >Yes! I'd love to see once exactly how fast all these chips are (80286, >68000, 80386, 68020, 80486, 68040). For example, I've heard once that a >standard 68000 Amiga has about the same computing power as a 12 Mhz 80286. >Is this true? How about a fast 386/486? What does it take to blow them out >of the water? You can't tell the performance of any _SYSTEM_ simply by looking at the CPU's clock speed. You need to know the kind of memory the CPU is talking to (including possibly system-level caches), the any overhead work the CPU is doing (eg, is there other hardware helping out the CPU, or is the CPU being used to replace some hardware), and the nature of the operating system that's driving the whole thing. You also need to know the kind of program that's running. You can find some things that a garden variety 12MHz AT will do faster than a plain 68000-based Amiga, and other things the Amiga will do faster. If you know the chip types, you can certainly make a few performance estimates when comparing system to system: you know how many clock cycles a memory fetch would take, what kind of objects the CPU can manipulate, etc. In general, 80286 system compare with 68000 system, 68020 and 68030 system compare with 80386 systems, and 68040 systems should compare well with 80486 systems. But again, it depends on how the thing is built. HP has a 50MHz 68030 system that beats most 25MHz 80486 systems in most integer benchmarks (though you'll find the same benchmark on the same system will change depending on the OS in charge at the time). Of course, the HP is designed to be a workstation, and costs like one, whereas most 80486 systems are built much like other PCs. And there's nothing much HP could do to make that machine equal the 80486 in floating point operations, other than dropping a 68040 into it. >Chris Brand - wizard@sosaria.imp.com -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy The Dave Haynie branch of the New Zealand Fan Club
klien@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Karen Lien) (07/25/90)
In article <3384.AA3384@sosaria> wizard@sosaria.imp.com (Chris Brand) writes: >Yes! I'd love to see once exactly how fast all these chips are (80286, >68000, 80386, 68020, 80486, 68040). For example, I've heard once that a >standard 68000 Amiga has about the same computing power as a 12 Mhz 80286. I've heard every number there is from 6 to 14. Let's say it's a subjective analysis :). The MIPS (oh shutup and stuff your defns) values of the 68040 are greater than the 80486 -- although I could buy a machine with the latter chip in it... >Is this true? How about a fast 386/486? What does it take to blow them out >of the water? Because that machine is probably running an 8-bit DOS... Kind of like sticking a jet engine on those old Volkswagon buggies. >------------------------------------ >Chris Brand - wizard@sosaria.imp.com >"Justice is the possession and doing >of what one is entitled to" - Platon >------------------------------------ Mail me if you want the figures and I'll look them up tonight... (MIPS, that is) David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu -- oh drat, my account isn't working. It'll take a couple of days for me to respond -- mail should still arrive safely.
dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) (07/25/90)
wizard@sosaria.imp.com (Chris Brand) writes: >Yes! I'd love to see once exactly how fast all these chips are (80286, >68000, 80386, 68020, 80486, 68040). For example, I've heard once that a >standard 68000 Amiga has about the same computing power as a 12 Mhz 80286. >Is this true? How about a fast 386/486? What does it take to blow them out >of the water? A 50 Mhz 68030 blows away any intel chip to date.(You can say i'm partial to Motorola chips because i work for them :) ).I hear INTEL is comming out with a faster 486 at around 40Mhz+ speed.Meanwhile Motorola is just releasing the 040 cpu that puts INTEL even further behind. If you're intersted in performance of the Amiga equipped with fast 030's the currant Amazing Computing has performance results of several 030 boards. (they all cost $$$$$$$$) James Dusek Motorola FSD p.s. I'll never be in an apple commerical.I think mac's are too $$$$$.
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (07/25/90)
wizard@sosaria.imp.com (Chris Brand) writes: |Yes! I'd love to see once exactly how fast all these chips are (80286, |68000, 80386, 68020, 80486, 68040). For example, I've heard once that a |standard 68000 Amiga has about the same computing power as a 12 Mhz 80286. |Is this true? How about a fast 386/486? What does it take to blow them out |of the water? Comparing Intel CPU's to Motorola's is like comparing apples and oranges: They are both fruit... but deciding which one is better depends on your personal taste. -- John Sparks | | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/26/90)
In article <4303@azure10.UUCP> dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) writes: > A 50 Mhz 68030 blows away any intel chip to date. You forget that the i860 and i960 are Intel chips too; they're much faster than the 50MHz 68030. But then, so are the 88000, 56001, and 96002 Motorola chips! -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) (07/27/90)
In article <3384.AA3384@sosaria> wizard@sosaria.imp.com (Chris Brand) writes: >Yes! I'd love to see once exactly how fast all these chips are (80286, >68000, 80386, 68020, 80486, 68040). For example, I've heard once that a >standard 68000 Amiga has about the same computing power as a 12 Mhz 80286. >Is this true? How about a fast 386/486? What does it take to blow them out >of the water? The original A1000 worked as fast as an EGA IBM-AT (can't vouch for the clock speed). However, I don't think a 7.16 MHz 68000 has more MIPs than a 12MHz 80286 (ask Dave Haynie). In my opinion, the Amiga's tightly knit architecture had more influence on its speed than anything else. --- Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 Telecom Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (07/28/90)
So far in this (these) discussions everybody has studiously avoided
posting verifiable comparison program run times for Amigas vs. the
others. I want to see lots of data, verifiable !! data for differnt
programs. I propose that you all post detailed comparison runs.
Include the following:
Machine, brand, model, specs
System, compiler
Program (with code if need be)
Timing results.
I would like to see A2000, A2500, A3000 vs IBM PS/2 80 , and other
16, 20, and 25 mhz Intel 80386/80387 clones, on various floating point
intensive programs.
e.g. Linpack 300x300 , some fast fourier transforms without tabled
sines/cosines, eigenvalues of 50x50 matrices, exponential sums,
calculation with complex numbers.
ABSOFT or other Fortran for the Amigas, Lattice C, Manx C VS
Microsoft Fortran, Lahey Fortran, Microway Fortran for 386, MS-C,
TURBO-C
Again! So far I have seen no postings of comparisons only meaningless
MIPS figures and statements that it depends on various things other
than clock speed. I want comparisons of the bottom line, results.
Please don't quote Dhrysotnes. They ar not even floating point.
However Specmarks would be welcome.
-----------------------------------------------
Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj
urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@unc.bitnet
or urjlew@uncvm1.acs.unc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet)
tel. (919)-962-6501rick@tmiuv0.uucp (07/30/90)
In article <4303@azure10.UUCP>, dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) writes: > wizard@sosaria.imp.com (Chris Brand) writes: > >>Yes! I'd love to see once exactly how fast all these chips are (80286, >>68000, 80386, 68020, 80486, 68040). [...] > A 50 Mhz 68030 blows away any intel chip to date.(You can say > i'm partial to Motorola chips because i work for them :) ).I hear INTEL > is comming out with a faster 486 at around 40Mhz+ speed.Meanwhile > Motorola is just releasing the 040 cpu that puts INTEL even further behind. > If you're intersted in performance of the Amiga equipped with fast 030's > the currant Amazing Computing has performance results of several 030 boards. > (they all cost $$$$$$$$) In any comparison, let's make sure that we compare apples to apples (sorry about that 8-)). By that I mean, let's compare CISC processors to CISC processors and RISC to RISC. Even then, the comparisons aren't valid, since the architectures of the computers the chips are in affect the benchmarks to a great degree. For example, a 68000-based Amiga kicks a Mac's rear due to the custom chips in the Amiga, where the Mac does everything (almost) with the 68000. Even if they're run at the same clock speed. See what I mean? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [- O] Rick Stevens ? EMail: uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick -or- uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop V CIS: 75006,1355 (75006.1355@compuserve.com from Internet) "I'm tellin' ya, Valiant! Da whole ting stinks like yesterday's diapers!" - Baby Herman in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
martin@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Daniel Martin) (07/31/90)
Parody ahead, use 'j' to skip..
[-]
12 years later on a TV wall screen...
"Intel has actually begun work on it's new 80986 processor series. This
processor is suppose to be 12 times faster than the 68080 and at least twice
as fast as the 88500 (90Mhz). It is based on the the new (patented) parallel
light propagation technique. Motorola hasn't release the specs of their 090
series, but source indicates that it should outperform all intel processors to
date."
Son: Father, what is this about?
Father: (With a strange sense of deja vu?) I think this is what they
call evolution.
[-]
Take all this with a smile :-) . For flame, please use E-MAIL.
--
// Daniel Martin Universite de Montreal \\
// MediaLab, ca vous regarde! C.P. 6128, Succursale A, \\
\\// Mail: martin@IRO.UMontreal.CA Montreal (Quebec), CANADA, \\//
\/ UUCP: ..utai!mcgill-vision!iros52!martin H3C 3J7, Tel: (514)343-7009 \/