reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) (08/05/90)
Hi, I heard good things about these chips on the net, so I bought one today. Are there any tests that I can run that will validate that it's just as good as an Intel 80387 (it passes the included diagnostics), or I guess someone's word who has run such tests would be sufficient. thanks...jim =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital Equipment Corporation." James J. Reisert Internet: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corp. UUCP: ...decwrl!ricks.enet!reisert 77 Reed Road Hudson, MA 01749-2895
nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) (08/05/90)
In article <14244@shlump.nac.dec.com> reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes: >Hi, > >I heard good things about these chips on the net, so I bought one today. >Are there any tests that I can run that will validate that it's just as good >as an Intel 80387 (it passes the included diagnostics), or I guess someone's >word who has run such tests would be sufficient. > Huh ? Sorry, I may look like a fool, but a Cyrix ? Gee I'm really out of touch ... The only non-intel co-processor I've heard of is the Weitek It seems that this beast is faster amd much more expensive than the Intel kitter... Now, would any of you net-lander comment on this ... how many co-processor are there ? Tested,, untested, price, compatibility etc ... e-mail or post. >thanks...jim Thanks. Naji. P.S. I've posted some times ago a message about MNP level five modems I recieved several repsonds that clearly showed me I don't have any clue as to what I was talking about. As soon as I resolve my current problem, I'll post a summary. Thanks for those of you who sent me e-mail. -- ---------------+------------------------------------------- | Naji Mouawad | nmouawad@water.uwaterloo.edu | | University |-------------------------------------------| | Of Waterloo | "Thanks God, we cannot prove He Exists." |
scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) (08/05/90)
In article <1990Aug4.220844.7349@water.waterloo.edu>, nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) writes: > Huh ? Sorry, I may look like a fool, but a Cyrix ? Gee I'm really > out of touch ... The only non-intel co-processor I've heard of is the Weitek > It seems that this beast is faster amd much more expensive than the Intel > kitter... There are now three sources of plug-compatible coprocessors. (The Weitek is faster and more expensive, but it's not plug-compatible -- you need a special socket [or adapter board] and special software to use it. Standard 80287/80387 code can't use it.) Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) is now selling their copy of the 80287-10 for MUCH less than Intel does. This chip is as exact copy of Intel's (they have an agreement under which AMD got all the info). Cyrix makes clones of both the 80287 and 80387. These are slightly faster than Intel's parts and a little bit cheaper. IIT also makes clones of bothe the 80287 and 80387. These are a good bit faster than Intel's parts for about the same price. ---- Larry Jones UUCP: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones SDRC scjones@thor.UUCP 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150-2789 AT&T: (513) 576-2070 You should see me when I lose in real life! -- Calvin
ndoduc@framentec.fr (Nhuan Doduc) (08/07/90)
In <128@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >There are now three sources of plug-compatible coprocessors.... ----> 3 and a half: the 287XL is also a good value 287XL ~= IIT 2C87 on most FP intensive benchmarks >Cyrix makes clones of both the 80287 and 80387. These are slightly ------> NOT of 80287 (387sx yes, but no 287) >faster than Intel's parts and a little bit cheaper. ----> in many tests done here, Cyrix is MUCH FASTER than i387 (except at 33Mhz) >IIT also makes clones of bothe the 80287 and 80387. These are a >good bit faster than Intel's parts for about the same price. ----> I hate comparing IIT and Cyrix here but can send the above-mentioned benchmark report to anyone who request it. >SDRC ----> is SDRC the one who provides DIAG.EXE (an excellent test BTW)with one of the above clone ? ----> BTW, when will IIT or Cyrix or XXX make 6888x clone ? --nh N.DoDuc, Framentec-Cognitech, Paris, France, ndoduc@framentec.fr Association Francaise des Utilisateurs d'Unix, France, doduc@afuu.fr
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (09/27/90)
In article <128@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >There are now three sources of plug-compatible coprocessors. (The >Weitek is faster and more expensive, but it's not plug-compatible -- >you need a special socket [or adapter board] and special software to >use it. Standard 80287/80387 code can't use it.) > > >Cyrix makes clones of both the 80287 and 80387. These are slightly >faster than Intel's parts and a little bit cheaper. > >IIT also makes clones of bothe the 80287 and 80387. These are a >good bit faster than Intel's parts for about the same price. I have seen adds for Cyrix FastMath coprocessor (80387 compatible) that claims 3X speedups. Are there any benchmarks to support this? Also, is compatibility an issue?
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (09/30/90)
In article <1990Sep27.060417.23408@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: | I have seen adds for Cyrix FastMath coprocessor (80387 compatible) that | claims 3X speedups. Are there any benchmarks to support this? | Also, is compatibility an issue? I believe that was at 25MHz, but not 33MHz. Intel seems to have changed the mask in the 33MHz version, so that it is faster by a good bit. I believe several tests have shown this, including the recent one in either _PC Week_ or _Info World_. I have been told that putting the 33MHz version in a 25MHz system will be about 40% faster, due to some instructions taking fewer cycles. The people who told me this believed it enough to buy the fa$ter part. This may be the only case where putting in a faster *rated* part actually made the system faster without changing the operating speed. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (09/30/90)
>In article <1990Sep27.060417.23408@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >| I have seen adds for Cyrix FastMath coprocessor (80387 compatible) that >| claims 3X speedups. Are there any benchmarks to support this? >| Also, is compatibility an issue? At risk of starting a flame fest (pump, pump, pump, light).... When cyrix (or anyone) claims a 3X or whatever speedup with stuff og this type they REALLY are saying (in this case) that the average (or some measure) 80x87 instruction is performed in 1/3 the number of clock cycles. To you as a user, you will see virtually NO difference (generally) once the entire system is assembled. A typical application such as lotus or autocad does use the 80x87, but a. the instruction mix they use almost certainly doesn't line up with the one the claim was made using, & b. the stream of 80x87 instructions is intermixed. For 1 80x87 instruction, there may be 50 or 100 80x86(8) & memory:I/O related instructions. Using this model, with the original claim, and some wild ass extrapolations, it should be clear that while the 80x87 is important, just popping one in (or changing it) won't ever lead to ANYTHING even remotely approaching nX speed ups. As a matter of fact, with lotus and any speadsheet I have (distributed or my own), the difference with or without a 80x87 is som small I can't even measure it. On the other hand, in autocad, the difference between with and without a 80x87 can be signifigant and easily measured. But this number is much bigger (by a signifigant factor) than that even remotely possible with a more effecient 80x87. Further, in a followup post to this original, one MAY get the idea that more performance can be achieved by simply popping in a faster chip speed in a slower socket. This is NOT the case, the actual system clock speed is like a traffic cop. Everything goes that speed in that system. So, when a 100 Mhz chip is put in a 4.77 Mhz system, it will give very very very nearly exactly the exact same performance as the same model chip with a 4.77 Mhz rating. (There can be a terribly small differences but they are so small it is nearly impossible to measure.) In this case, the reference being made is to a fundamental change in chip design. This change was implemented at a higher speed rating, and is responsible for a measureable performance increase if/when that chip is used in a slower system. It also is my understanding that the redesign of the 80387 chip by intel that was implemented at the 33 Mhz speed, has been reapplied across the board to all 80387's now in porduction. Can anybody give reference to either confirm or deny that rumour ? (Anybody listening at intel ? -- I guess silence may be a answer also...) al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/01/90)
In article <1990Sep30.160127.3442@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: | At risk of starting a flame fest (pump, pump, pump, light).... | When cyrix (or anyone) claims a 3X or whatever speedup with stuff og this type | they REALLY are saying (in this case) that the average (or some measure) | 80x87 instruction is performed in 1/3 the number of clock cycles. Right. I haven't seen a claim that high, but that's how they get their faster. I have seen notes that certain chosen instructions were 3X faster, but not even a claim that the overall performance was that much better. | as a user, you will see virtually NO difference (generally) once the entire | system is assembled. That depends on your use and applications. | A typical application such as lotus or autocad does | use the 80x87, but a. the instruction mix they use almost certainly doesn't | line up with the one the claim was made using, & b. the stream of 80x87 | instructions is intermixed. For 1 80x87 instruction, there may be 50 or | 100 80x86(8) & memory:I/O related instructions. Using this model, with | the original claim, and some wild ass extrapolations, it should be clear | that while the 80x87 is important, just popping one in (or changing it) | won't ever lead to ANYTHING even remotely approaching nX speed ups. I agree that those applications are not going to notably benefit. I disagree that these are typical. I would claim that there simply is *no* typical application today (if there ever was) and that basing any claim for or against the need for additional hardware is either foolish or misleading, depending on whether you believe it yourself. | As a matter of fact, with lotus and any speadsheet I have (distributed | or my own), the difference with or without a 80x87 is som small I can't | even measure it. On the other hand, in autocad, the difference between | with and without a 80x87 can be signifigant and easily measured. But this | number is much bigger (by a signifigant factor) than that even remotely | possible with a more effecient 80x87. I agree completely, for these applications you would see little improvement from a faster math chip. You would se some, particularly if you did a lot of transcendental functions, but not much. | Further, in a followup post to this original, one MAY get the idea | that more performance can be achieved by simply popping in a faster | chip speed in a slower socket. I hope you get that idea, that's what I said. | This is NOT the case, the actual system | clock speed is like a traffic cop. Everything goes that speed in that system. You were right a few paragraphs back. The better chips perform the operation in fewer cycles. Therefore they do more operations in the same time, or run the same program in less time. Without a change in clock speed. Your first statement was correct, this one is wrong. | So, when a 100 Mhz chip is put in a 4.77 Mhz system, it will give very very | very nearly exactly the exact same performance as the same model chip with | a 4.77 Mhz rating. (There can be a terribly small differences but they | are so small it is nearly impossible to measure.) In this case, the | reference being made is to a fundamental change in chip design. This | change was implemented at a higher speed rating, and is responsible for | a measureable performance increase if/when that chip is used in a slower | system. As I read it, you just corrected yourself. If you use a redesigned chip at the same speed it can run programs in fewer cycles (= less time). I have seen some real programs (ie not benchmarks) which ran 25 times faster with a coprocessor. I make no claim that these are typical, but while 100 sec is a lot better than 2500 sec (that's the ballpark for this program), knocking 30% off that is going to be quite useful. I will believe the 3X when and if I see it. I have seen figures taken by someone who traded a 387 for an IIT and got about that 30%. Examples of programs which might do this kind of thing are star charts, ray tracing, and calculation of complex orbits. There are people who do that kind of thing, even for fun. Also fractals if float is being used. | It also is my understanding that the redesign of the 80387 chip by | intel that was implemented at the 33 Mhz speed, has been reapplied | across the board to all 80387's now in porduction. Can anybody give | reference to either confirm or deny that rumour ? (Anybody listening | at intel ? -- I guess silence may be a answer also...) I have no more solid information than you. My pet rumor says the process and masks for the 25MHz has higher yield and therefore is still in use for the chips which are slower rated. Note I have no more confirmation than you, and if I get it it will probably be under non-disclosure and I couldn't say so anyway. There are applications which benefit from 860s and vector processing boards. Every user must be quite careful to understand what resources s/he uses before buying hardware to provide more of same. On that I agree with you completely and without reservation. I usually stop there trying to tell someone else what will and won't be effective. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (10/04/90)
... I wrote several ago... that I thought that the improvement to the 80387 chip mask, which increased the 'effeciency' of production per clock tick -- which basically had been a side effect of producing a 33 Mhz model, had been been implemented across the board and that all intel 80387's had now received this 'improvement'. (Not a quote but the basic gist of it...) Per PCWEEK 10/1/1990 pg 4. Intel Soups up 387 Coprocessor (reprinted with out permission, and edited by me for brevity...) ... will be shipping 16, 20 & 25 Mhz versions ... as much as 20% faster... .... by use of enhanced microcode.... List price, 16 Mhz $ 570 (Quan 1) 20 Mhz $ 647 (quan 1), 25 Mhz $ 814 (quan 1). Hope this clears it up. It isn;t clear that the old verison is either going to be discounted heavily (although the price has been dropping on the street) or discontinued... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE