dd2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Eugene Dwiggins) (04/07/91)
Is there a significant difference in speed between a cached 33 Mhz system and a 486/25 system not counting floating point performance? David
c60b-1eq@web-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) (04/08/91)
In article <Qbzekoy00Uzx42w1Fh@andrew.cmu.edu> dd2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Eugene Dwiggins) writes: >Is there a significant difference in speed between a cached 33 Mhz system >and a 486/25 system not counting floating point performance? >David Do you mean 33 MHz 386 vs. 25 MHz 486? If the 386 is cached, and you don't include the math coprocessor, it should be equal or faster than the 486. Of course that depends on the size of the cache. +==========================================================================+ | Noam Mendelson ..!agate!ucbvax!web!c60b-1eq | "I haven't lost my mind, | | c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU | it's backed up on tape | | University of California at Berkeley | somewhere." |
flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) (04/09/91)
c60b-1eq@web-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes: >In article <Qbzekoy00Uzx42w1Fh@andrew.cmu.edu> dd2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Eugene Dwiggins) writes: >>Is there a significant difference in speed between a cached 33 Mhz system >>and a 486/25 system not counting floating point performance? >>David >Do you mean 33 MHz 386 vs. 25 MHz 486? If the 386 is cached, and you >don't include the math coprocessor, it should be equal or faster than the >486. Of course that depends on the size of the cache. >+==========================================================================+ >| Noam Mendelson ..!agate!ucbvax!web!c60b-1eq | "I haven't lost my mind, | >| c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU | it's backed up on tape | >| University of California at Berkeley | somewhere." | I sure hope people aren't basing buying decisions on the info presented so far in this string. A lot of the numbers are wrong: a 33 MHz 386 with cache is not the same as a 486. As someone who uses both a 386 AND a 486 machine daily, let me try to set some stuff straight: The 486 is a lot faster at everything: generally >2 times as fast, at the same clock speed. That means a 25 MHz 486 runs about half again faster than a 33 MHz 386. But anyone who looks only at CPU speed in determining overall system performance is foolish: the speed of your disks, the speed of your controller, the bus speed, the speed of your memory (wait states), the speed of your video adapter, it all matters. Unless you know what you are doing, even doubling one of these factors may have no noticable improvement in speed for a specific application: each different application will have it's own bottleneck. I have a 25 MHz 486 that uses 3 minutes to do a large C compile which takes 20 minutes to do on an uncached 20 MHz 386: both have the same amount of memory. If we pumped that 386 up to 33 MHz, it would be 1.65 times faster, and would still take > 12 minutes. If, by some miracle, we could get 1.5 times the performance through caching, it would still be taking 8 minutes. That 386 doesn't have nearly as good a disk controller, although the disk speeds are identical: my estimate is it would be 1.5 times faster with a better controller, which would mean it would take 5 minutes compared to the 3 the 486 uses. Does that sound equal to you? (Remember that software can make even more difference- when I don't use Micro-Slow's compiler, I get the compile done in under 2 minutes.) -- Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 1800 Woodfield Drive, Savoy, IL 61874 (217) 352-1165 uunet!gistdev!flint or flint@gistdev.gist.com
c60b-1eq@web-1a.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) (04/09/91)
In article <1163@gistdev.gist.com> flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) writes: >c60b-1eq@web-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes: >>In article <Qbzekoy00Uzx42w1Fh@andrew.cmu.edu> dd2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Eugene Dwiggins) writes: >>>Is there a significant difference in speed between a cached 33 Mhz system >>>and a 486/25 system not counting floating point performance? >>>David >>Do you mean 33 MHz 386 vs. 25 MHz 486? If the 386 is cached, and you >>don't include the math coprocessor, it should be equal or faster than the >>486. Of course that depends on the size of the cache. >I sure hope people aren't basing buying decisions on the info presented so far >in this string. A lot of the numbers are wrong: a 33 MHz 386 with cache is not >the same as a 486. As someone who uses both a 386 AND a 486 machine daily, let >me try to set some stuff straight: >The 486 is a lot faster at everything: generally >2 times as fast, at the same >clock speed. That means a 25 MHz 486 runs about half again faster than a 33 >MHz 386. NOT AS FAR AS CPU PERFORMANCE IS CONCERNED. Given the same clock speed, the 486 runs roughly 50% faster. What you are talking about is a complete system's performance. This depends on memory, disks, etc., as well as the CPU. If you perform a CPU benchmark, please post the results. >But anyone who looks only at CPU speed in determining overall system >performance is foolish: the speed of your disks, the speed of your controller, >the bus speed, the speed of your memory (wait states), the speed of your video >adapter, it all matters. Unless you know what you are doing, even doubling one >of these factors may have no noticable improvement in speed for a specific >application: each different application will have it's own bottleneck. Agreed. But I was under the impression that this thread was concerning CPU's alone. >I have a 25 MHz 486 that uses 3 minutes to do a large C compile which takes 20 >minutes to do on an uncached 20 MHz 386: both have the same amount of memory. >If we pumped that 386 up to 33 MHz, it would be 1.65 times faster, and would >still take > 12 minutes. If, by some miracle, we could get 1.5 times the >performance through caching, it would still be taking 8 minutes. That 386 >doesn't have nearly as good a disk controller, although the disk speeds are >identical: my estimate is it would be 1.5 times faster with a better >controller, which would mean it would take 5 minutes compared to the 3 the 486 >uses. Does that sound equal to you? (Remember that software can make even >more difference- when I don't use Micro-Slow's compiler, I get the compile >done in under 2 minutes.) These kinds of generalizations can get you in trouble when comparing systems. Also, as I stated earlier, software speed does not necessarily imply CPU speed. +==========================================================================+ | Noam Mendelson ..!agate!ucbvax!web!c60b-1eq | "I haven't lost my mind, | | c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU | it's backed up on tape | | University of California at Berkeley | somewhere." |
flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) (04/12/91)
>>>In article <Qbzekoy00Uzx42w1Fh@andrew.cmu.edu> dd2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Eugene Dwiggins) asked: >>>>Is there a significant difference in speed between a cached 33 Mhz system >>>>and a 486/25 system not counting floating point performance? I responded: >>The 486 is a lot faster at everything: generally >2 times as fast, at the same >>clock speed. That means a 25 MHz 486 runs about half again faster than a 33 >>MHz 386. >c60b-1eq@web-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) then stated: >NOT AS FAR AS CPU PERFORMANCE IS CONCERNED. Given the same clock speed, >the 486 runs roughly 50% faster. What you are talking about is a complete >system's performance. This depends on memory, disks, etc., as well as >the CPU. If you perform a CPU benchmark, please post the results. My response, as polite as I can make it: Mr. Mendelson doesn't know what he's talking about: his 50% figure is just plain wrong. Ok, I will post a benchmark, but not mine, this is from Personal Workstation magazine. (Excerpted without permission: I doubt they will mind. If you want to see the full details about the benchmark, I suggest you acquire any copy of this excellent mag, as they post benchmark results every month.) This excerpt shows only one category (DOS) and only 33 MHz machines, and only the Dhrystone tests (they publish results of 5 different tests in 4 different OS'es and about 4 different price categories. Performance ratios between 386 and 486 machines seem to follow the same ratios as the ones below.) DOS 386 Systems: Dhrystone Price Micro Express /33 15,870 $4,998 Laser Ditigal 386/33 15,750 $4,296 Arche Legacy 386/33 17,134 $8,665 Northgate 386/33 17,131 $8,919 AST 486/33 34,192 $4,490 (upgrade board) Club American Hawk III 35,923 $6,495 NCR PC486/MC 33 35,234 $14,995 The Dhrystone numbers drop down to around 12K for the 386 machines at 25 MHz and down to 26K for the 486's at 25 MHz. Unless your arithmetic is different than mine, that works out to about twice as fast, not 50% faster. Yes, these are complete systems being tested: if what you are trying to claim is that factors other than CPU speed are affecting the results of the Dhrystone tests, (since a Dhrystone test does not involve floating point, and does not do I/O) I'd be interested to hear what you think they are, assuming you have some concrete information, not misinformation. (Compiler performance can affect Dhrystone results, but on 386 and 486 machines they are using the same compilers, so that isn't it.) -- Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 1800 Woodfield Drive, Savoy, IL 61874 (217) 352-1165 uunet!gistdev!flint or flint@gistdev.gist.com
c60b-1eq@web-4h.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) (04/12/91)
In article <1164@gistdev.gist.com> flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) writes: >>>>In article <Qbzekoy00Uzx42w1Fh@andrew.cmu.edu> dd2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Eugene Dwiggins) asked: >>>>>Is there a significant difference in speed between a cached 33 Mhz system >>>>>and a 486/25 system not counting floating point performance? >I responded: >>>The 486 is a lot faster at everything: generally >2 times as fast, at the same >>>clock speed. That means a 25 MHz 486 runs about half again faster than a 33 >>>MHz 386. >>c60b-1eq@web-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) then stated: >>NOT AS FAR AS CPU PERFORMANCE IS CONCERNED. Given the same clock speed, >>the 486 runs roughly 50% faster. What you are talking about is a complete >>system's performance. This depends on memory, disks, etc., as well as >>the CPU. If you perform a CPU benchmark, please post the results. >My response, as polite as I can make it: >Mr. Mendelson doesn't know what he's talking about: his 50% figure is >just plain wrong. Ok, I will post a benchmark, but not mine, this is >from Personal Workstation magazine. (Excerpted without permission: I >doubt they will mind. If you want to see the full details about the >benchmark, I suggest you acquire any copy of this excellent mag, as >they post benchmark results every month.) This excerpt shows only one >category (DOS) and only 33 MHz machines, and only the Dhrystone tests >(they publish results of 5 different tests in 4 different OS'es and >about 4 different price categories. Performance ratios between 386 >and 486 machines seem to follow the same ratios as the ones below.) >DOS 386 Systems: Dhrystone Price >Micro Express /33 15,870 $4,998 >Laser Ditigal 386/33 15,750 $4,296 >Arche Legacy 386/33 17,134 $8,665 >Northgate 386/33 17,131 $8,919 > >AST 486/33 34,192 $4,490 (upgrade board) >Club American Hawk III 35,923 $6,495 >NCR PC486/MC 33 35,234 $14,995 My response, as polite as I can make it: You quoted only 4 386/33 systems and 3 486/33 systems. I would like to see the entire survey. You also failed to specify the size of the cache (or lack thereof) on each of the systems. You also failed to provide additional benchmarks on said systems to support your claim. If you examine the article in PC Magazine, you'll find that they also performed additional benchmarks on their systems, but since the results came out to be identical to those yielded by the instruction mix, they did not bother to print them. > . . . I'd be interested to >hear what you think they are, assuming you have some concrete >information, not misinformation. (Compiler performance can affect >Dhrystone results, but on 386 and 486 machines they are using the >same compilers, so that isn't it.) Provided you specify the issue, I'll check out the article in Personal Workstation magazine. Also, I will collect more benchmark data and post it, since you obviously doubt the PC Magazine article. I would advise readers of this newsgroup to do the same. -- +==========================================================================+ | Noam Mendelson ..!agate!ucbvax!web!c60b-1eq | "I haven't lost my mind, | | c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU | it's backed up on tape | | University of California at Berkeley | somewhere." |
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) (04/12/91)
In article <1164@gistdev.gist.com> flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) writes: > >(they publish results of 5 different tests in 4 different OS'es and >about 4 different price categories. Performance ratios between 386 >and 486 machines seem to follow the same ratios as the ones below.) > >DOS 386 Systems: Dhrystone Price >Micro Express /33 15,870 $4,998 >Laser Ditigal 386/33 15,750 $4,296 >Arche Legacy 386/33 17,134 $8,665 >Northgate 386/33 17,131 $8,919 > >AST 486/33 34,192 $4,490 (upgrade board) >Club American Hawk III 35,923 $6,495 >NCR PC486/MC 33 35,234 $14,995 > >The Dhrystone numbers drop down to around 12K for the 386 machines >at 25 MHz and down to 26K for the 486's at 25 MHz. Unless your >arithmetic is different than mine, that works out to about >twice as fast, not 50% faster. How different can the performance of different brands of 486 motherboard be? The numbers above look highly inflated compared to what I can get in my system. I have a 486/25 with 128K cache, based on the OPTI chipset. Under DOS, QAPlus rates it at 15172 Dhrystones. Under ISC Unix, Drhystone 2.1 (source code from netlib, compiled with gcc) gives a reading of ~~ 17000. This is the best I can get, with all memory addresses cached. Can different motherboard designs give such radically improved performance? I suppose the more likely explanation is that the benchmark code is not the same. The only change I made to the Dhrystone code was the HZ constant used in the timing routine (from 60 to 100). Can anyone enlighten me on this one?
thomaz@chunnel.ecn.purdue.edu (Jose E Thomaz) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr12.073828.20663@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >In article <1164@gistdev.gist.com> flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) writes: >> >>(they publish results of 5 different tests in 4 different OS'es and >>about 4 different price categories. Performance ratios between 386 >>and 486 machines seem to follow the same ratios as the ones below.) >> >>DOS 386 Systems: Dhrystone Price >>Micro Express /33 15,870 $4,998 >>Laser Ditigal 386/33 15,750 $4,296 >>Arche Legacy 386/33 17,134 $8,665 >>Northgate 386/33 17,131 $8,919 >> >>AST 486/33 34,192 $4,490 (upgrade board) >>Club American Hawk III 35,923 $6,495 >>NCR PC486/MC 33 35,234 $14,995 >> >>The Dhrystone numbers drop down to around 12K for the 386 machines >>at 25 MHz and down to 26K for the 486's at 25 MHz. Unless your >>arithmetic is different than mine, that works out to about >>twice as fast, not 50% faster. > Just to add some more data... I have a gateway 2000 25 Mz at home with 4 Mb of memory and a CYRIX co processo (25 Mz too...) My department just bought a Northgate 486 25 Mz with 4 Mb of memory. When I first benchmarked it with standard system information programs a la QAplus I was disapointed. All results were vary close to my gateway.. Even standard dos programs like the graphical preview in word perfect were not that impressive.. same for autocad (10, not the 386 version) Now the whole impression vanished when I used 386 specific programs.. NDP fortran compiled programs run in less than half (almost 1/3) of the time. And only yesterday I was running MATLAB 386 benchmark set and here are some of the numbers.. for a reference, MATLAB uses IBM XT index = 1 then PC / AT = 1.357 (MATLAB 286 of course...) 386/387 (20 Mhz) = 14.347 (The benchmark does not says brand..) my gateway/Cyrix (25 Mz) = 22.971 Northgate 486 (25 Mhz) = 64.736!! ^^^^^^^^ Now That is a LOT FASTER! than my 25 Mhz 386.. And it was pretty visible the difference as the different routines were executed.. Some other numbers given for comparison by the bench routines were: SUN-3/FPA = 19.426 Sun-4 = 35.4397 Spark = 65.519 (Probably spark 1, I don't know!) Of course, these are numerically intensive benchmarks, so every one just use judgement of how representative these are for their own purposes.. I for one, am sold on the 486 for my large 386, 32 bit applications... I just wonder if OS/2 version 2.0, being partially 32 bit will benefit as much.. Anybody out there would have any information? Well, just my $.02... Eduardo Purdue University, Civil Engineering Department -
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr12.073828.20663@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: [stuff deleted] >Under DOS, QAPlus rates it at 15172 Dhrystones. Under ISC Unix, >Drhystone 2.1 (source code from netlib, compiled with gcc) gives a >reading of ~~ 17000. This is the best I can get, with all memory >addresses cached. > >Can different motherboard designs give such radically improved >performance? I suppose the more likely explanation is that the >benchmark code is not the same. The only change I made to the >Dhrystone code was the HZ constant used in the timing routine >(from 60 to 100). > >Can anyone enlighten me on this one? It would seem that the the dhrystone code really isnt the same. My best guess is that the 'other guy' used Dhrystone 1.x on the 486 systems-- which does rate 486/33's at 34-35,000 Dhrystones. I also suspect that you were using a rather lousy compiler in generating you dhrystone results... But that is just a guess. Doing any benchmark while running under DOS (even with a DOS-extender) really cripples the test-- since the program must be lobotomized to run in that environment. I appluad your try at UNIX... Anyway, when doing tests like this it is important to use similar/same compilers/options on the two CPU's-- a luxery we seldom have. That's why we loot at the various trade journals. Personal Workstation, Unix World, and UNIX Review has rated all 486/33's in the ballpark of 34-37,000 dhrystones. All 486/25's in the 23-27,000 Range. The 386/33's get 15-18,000. And the 386/25's get about 11-13,000. Since these benchmarks are all ran in very similar environments (possibly even the same binary), it's fair to say that the results are reliable. When noting that there were no stray figures (like a 486/33 doing 17,000), then it's even easier to have faith in the figures... Anyway. These figures would indicate that the 486 is twice as fast as the 386 for the same clock speed. It is also interesting to note that: The 486 can be sped up further by re-arranging the instructions so that they make better use of the 486's parallelism/pipelining. None of the UNIX compilers make use of this "well documented by Intel" feature. Actual milage may vary, but all indications are that the 486/33 could do 40K+ dhrystones with this optimization. The dhrystone does not test floating point performance. All indications show that the 486 is about three times as fast as the 387-- about 1.5 MFLOPS. This is pittifully slow when compared to other CPU's like the 040 (3.5 MFLOPS), but I can live with it... Well... That's my two cents worth... -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | do { 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | . . . If you cant flame MS-DOS, who can you flame? | } while( jones);
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr12.093457.4147@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: >Personal Workstation, Unix World, and UNIX Review has rated all 486/33's in the >ballpark of 34-37,000 dhrystones. All 486/25's in the 23-27,000 Range. The >386/33's get 15-18,000. And the 386/25's get about 11-13,000. >Anyway. These figures would indicate that the 486 is twice as fast as the 386 >for the same clock speed. No they don't. They indicate that the 486 can run the Dhrystone twice as fast as the 386. You can't take a number like the Dhrystone and bandy it about as the be-all end-all benchmark, like some folks do with Norton SI. You need to look at a system's performance over a wide range of benchmarks before you start saying CPU X is twice as fast as CPU Y. I'm sure some of you remember a certain compiler maker who included special Dhrystone optimizations in their C compiler. Who's to say that the 486 (either by design or by chance) doesn't run the instruction mix that represents the Dhrystone more efficiently than it might run some other instruction mix? If you're going to buy a computer on which you'll be running the Dhrystone as your main application, by all means, get the system which has the best Dhrystone benchmark. But if you plan on using your system for anything else, you'll want to see how your other applications perform on it. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (04/15/91)
In article <1991Apr13.154941.1204@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: >>Anyway. These figures would indicate that the 486 is twice as fast as the 386 >>for the same clock speed. > >No they don't. They indicate that the 486 can run the Dhrystone twice >as fast as the 386. You can't take a number like the Dhrystone and >bandy it about as the be-all end-all benchmark, like some folks do with >Norton SI. You need to look at a system's performance over a wide >range of benchmarks before you start saying CPU X is twice as fast as >CPU Y. Yes, and no... Dhrystones, like SI, work very well in comparing CPU's of the same type-- ie 386 vs 386, and 486 vs 486. We, however, are comparing 386 with 486. So, it is important to know just what Dhrystones does and does not measure. It is mostly testing integer and string opterations, with some function calling for thrills. It does not measure floating point or any I/O speed. Also, because dhrystone code tends to be larger than the 8K internal cache of the 486 its results will be affected by a secondary cache. While it is true that "the 486 can run Dhrystones twice as fast as the 386", I believe that it is a good indicator of the difference between the 386 and 486. The best approach is to run several 'benchmarks'-- but we lack that luxery. Until then, I will consider the 486 twice as fast as the 386 for integer operations at the same clock speed. >I'm sure some of you remember a certain compiler maker who included >special Dhrystone optimizations in their C compiler. Who's to say that >the 486 (either by design or by chance) doesn't run the instruction mix >that represents the Dhrystone more efficiently than it might run some >other instruction mix? The benchmarks were compiled with the standard AT&T comiler as well as the GNU compiler-- FOR BOTH MACHINES. Where they could, the same binaries were used. Thus, the effects of a 'better instruction mix' is negated because both machines benifit from them. While it is true that there were several compilers that could recognise the dhrystone test, and essentally optimize it out, the AT&T and GCC compilers do not do this. >If you're going to buy a computer on which you'll be running the >Dhrystone as your main application, by all means, get the system which >has the best Dhrystone benchmark. But if you plan on using your system >for anything else, you'll want to see how your other applications >perform on it. Again, I believe that the dhrystone benchmark is a good (but not perfect) indicator of how integer and string based programs will perform. I would love to measure the time GCC would take to compiler EMACS-- until then we must be content with Dhrystones. The point of the Dhrystone tests that those journals did, and why I posted their results was this: These dhrystone results were done by one group of people that have many machines at their disposal. Because of the close-nit nature of their group, it was very easy for them to test each machine under very controlled conditions-- ie, one user, no UUCP or TCP/IP, same compiler and compiler options (or same binary). These benchmark results were RELIABLE and CONSISTANT, not at all like the other Dhrystone results that have appeared on this thread. Other benchmarks posted here have done many no-no's that could be avoided. Running MS-DOS based benchmarks is the first no-no. Others are running under different compilers and different benchmark versions. The bottom line is: Is the 486 faster than the 386? My answer is YES. When running integer and string based programs, it's about twice as fast. For floating point, about three time as fast. For MS-DOS programs, about 30-50% faster... Even if my figures have a 30% "fudge factor", the net result is the same: the 486 is good for power hungry applications. >John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | do { 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | . . . If you cant flame MS-DOS, who can you flame? | } while( jones);
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr14.215120.12728@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: >In article <1991Apr13.154941.1204@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: >>Who's to say that the 486 (either by design or by chance) doesn't >>run the instruction mix that represents the Dhrystone more >>efficiently than it might run some other instruction mix? >Where they could, the same binaries were used. Thus, the effects of a >'better instruction mix' is negated because both machines benifit from >them. I didn't say "better instruction mix." I realize that the binaries were the same here, but we're comparing two different CPUs which happen to be binary compatible. The point I was trying to make is that the benchmark in question may have included an instruction mix which the 486 could execute more efficiently than might be expected in a more "realistic" application mix -- the Norton SI syndrome. Also, given the importance of the Dhrystone in CPU marketing hype, would you really be surprised to find out a CPU had Dhrystone optimizations in hardware? (No, I'm not saying anyone has done this!) >The bottom line is: Is the 486 faster than the 386? My answer is YES. I certainly wasn't questioning this fact. I was just trying to caution against grabbing on to one benchmark as the ultimate comparison authority. I find it interesting that in Personal Workstation's "Great Performers" section, they quote only one integer benchmark (Dhrystone), yet quote as many as six floating poing benchmark results. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) (04/18/91)
c60b-1eq@web-4h.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes: >My response, as polite as I can make it: You quoted only 4 386/33 systems >and 3 486/33 systems. I would like to see the entire survey. You also failed >to specify the size of the cache (or lack thereof) on each of the systems. >You also failed to provide additional benchmarks on said systems to >support your claim. This isn't worth any more bandwidth, but briefly: as I stated before, Personal Workstation Magazine has those benchmarks EVERY month. The brief snippet I quoted was from the April '91 issue: they have several pages of data. I don't have any intention of violating the magazine's copyright by typing in several pages of benchmarks, even if I had the time for it. -- Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 1800 Woodfield Drive, Savoy, IL 61874 (217) 352-1165 uunet!gistdev!flint or flint@gistdev.gist.com