jmoore@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Moore) (07/06/90)
I was asked to find out some information for a professor here at the university. A project we are doing requires nothing more than as much speed as possible from the processor. I realize that this is related to disk acess and such but the basic question I need an answer for is "Which is faster a 386/33mhz or a 486/25mhz?" Thanks!! Jim Moore -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- James D. Moore jmoore@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu Computer Engineer Phone:(317) 494-2686 Industrial Engr. Dept., Purdue University, W. Lafayette, In 47907
kthompso@entec.Wichita.NCR.COM (Ken Thompson) (07/10/90)
Jim, The 486/33Mhz is faster. NCR is selling them. -- Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com
ggraef@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (gerald graef) (07/11/90)
In article <1990Jul5.205440.23370@ecn.purdue.edu> jmoore@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Moore) writes: > >I was asked to find out some information for a professor here at >the university. A project we are doing requires nothing more than >as much speed as possible from the processor. I realize that this >is related to disk acess and such but the basic question I need an >answer for is "Which is faster a 386/33mhz or a 486/25mhz?" > >Thanks!! > >Jim Moore > There is always substantial deviation between manufacturers, but given equivalent motherboards (say, with external caches etc.) the fastest 80x86 is the 33mhz 486, followed by the 25mhz 486 and then the 33-386's. A 486 will run in the range of 2 times faster than an equivalent speed 386. -- --Common sense is the collection of prejudices aquired by age 18 - Albert E. --Only by purest chance do the above resemble the views of anyone other than: Gerald Graef: Internet %%%%% ggraef@csd4.csd.uwm.edu : BITNET %%%%% ggraef%csd4.csd.uwm.edu@INTERBIT
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (07/11/90)
From article <1990Jul5.205440.23370@ecn.purdue.edu>, by jmoore@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Moore): > > I was asked to find out some information for a professor here at > the university. A project we are doing requires nothing more than > as much speed as possible from the processor. I realize that this > is related to disk acess and such but the basic question I need an > answer for is "Which is faster a 386/33mhz or a 486/25mhz?" I have a benchmark program that I wrote which does a lot of tests including the sieve, fibonacci, whetstone, integer math, floating math, trancendental math, etc. It was done in Turbo Pascal 3.0 so the compiler does no math optimizations, etc. Here are some of the final results (in seconds) which I obtained. Machine Name CPU MHz NO 80x87 With 80x87 IBM Model 80/486 486 25 26.80 10.92 DEC 325c 386 25 46.96 Zenith 386 386 25 51.25 20.93 IBM P70 386 20 74.92 IBM PS/2 80 386 16 91.66 Compaq 386 386 16 93.07 57.35 Primax 316SX 386sx 16 96.73 IBM PS/2 model 60 286 10 163.89 60.59 IBM PS/2 model 60 286 10 170.03 65.07 (OS/2 1.1 DOS box) IBM-AT 286 6 281.65 AT&T 6300 8086 ? 365.64 IBM-XT 8088 4.77 783.56 281.11 Amiga 2000 8088 4.77 797.41 (bridge card) Mac IIx 68030 16 1309.91 (Soft-PC 1.21 DOS emulation) That should give you a few comparisons. Unfortunately I haven't tested any 33Mhz 386 boxes. But at the same clock speed, the 486 chip appears to be about twice as fast as the 386 chip (in real mode at least) - Kevin Lowey
laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) (07/12/90)
From article <1990Jul11.161138.13630@dvinci.usask.ca>, by lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey): > From article <1990Jul5.205440.23370@ecn.purdue.edu>, by jmoore@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Moore): > But at the same clock speed, the 486 chip appears to > be about twice as fast as the 386 chip (in real mode at least) > > - Kevin Lowey There would be no difference in speed between a 386 with a math coprocessor and a 486. The 486 chip is a 386 + the math coprocessor in one. Intel considers the 486 as a part of the 386 family.
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (07/13/90)
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >From article <1990Jul5.205440.23370@ecn.purdue.edu>, by jmoore@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Moore): >I have a benchmark program that I wrote which does a lot of tests including >the sieve, fibonacci, whetstone, integer math, floating math, >trancendental math, etc. It was done in Turbo Pascal 3.0 so the compiler >does no math optimizations, etc. Here are some of the final results (in >seconds) which I obtained. >Machine Name CPU MHz NO 80x87 With 80x87 >IBM Model 80/486 486 25 26.80 10.92 >DEC 325c 386 25 46.96 >Zenith 386 386 25 51.25 20.93 What do you mean by "With 80x87"? Do you mean compiled for 80x87 or with one installed? I guess you mean the former as the math stuff is built into the 486. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Engineer VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
jpp@specialix.co.uk (John Pettitt) (07/13/90)
a1499@mindlink.UUCP (Andrew Harmsworth) writes: >> laughner@news.nd.edu writes: >> >> Msg-ID: <217@news.nd.edu> >> Posted: 12 Jul 90 14:37:06 GMT >> >> Org. : Univ. of Notre Dame >> Person: Tom laughner >> There would be no difference in speed between a 386 with a math >> coprocessor and a 486. The 486 chip is a 386 + the math coprocessor in >> one. Intel considers the 486 as a part of the 386 family. >I'm afraid that is not correct, essentially it is true, but a number of >optimizations were carried out in combining the two chips. I don't know the >details, what it affects, or by how much, but there are differences. As a rough guide a 25Mhz 486 is about twice a fast as a 25Mhz 386 (both cached) running SCO UNIX (musbus and dhrystone benchmarks). I did a quick check here (bc 512 ^ 512) and got the folowing: 33 Mhz ALR 386 6.7 seconds user time 25 Mhz ALR 486 (mca) 5.0 seconds user time This means that the 486 is 25% faster on this test, which equates quite well to the dhrystone numbers. FYI A 25 Mhz MIPS 3240 will do the same test in 3.3 seconds ! -- John Pettitt, Specialix International, Email: jpp@specialix.com Tel +44 (0) 9323 54254 Fax +44 (0) 9323 52781 Disclaimer: Me, say that ? Never, it's a forged posting !
a516@mindlink.UUCP (Jordan Melville) (07/14/90)
In article <217@news.nd.edu>, laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) wrote: > There would be no difference in speed between a 386 with a math > coprocessor and a 486. The 486 chip is a 386 + the math coprocessor in > one. Intel considers the 486 as a part of the 386 family. Although this may be true, you forget that the 486 has 8k of cache right on the processor, plus the chip IS more efficient that a 386+387 chip. The times should be close, but measurably different. Jordan. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jordan C. Melville Voice: (604) 943-7155 Vancouver, BC BBS: (604) 943-3503 (2400baud) "We want the world and UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a516 we want it now!" - The Doors a516@mindlink.UUCP "So what you're saying is a 11 voice adlib is better than a 32-track MT-32? Sounds logical to me." - Me.
ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) (07/16/90)
a516@mindlink.UUCP (Jordan Melville) writes: >In article <217@news.nd.edu>, laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) wrote: >> There would be no difference in speed between a 386 with a math >> coprocessor and a 486. The 486 chip is a 386 + the math coprocessor in >> one. Intel considers the 486 as a part of the 386 family. >Although this may be true, you forget that the 486 has 8k of cache right on the >processor, plus the chip IS more efficient that a 386+387 chip. The times >should be close, but measurably different. Doesn't the i486 use a pipeline mechanism for instruction loading ? ant -- V ant "It's great to be young and insane" \o/ ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au - Dream Team -O- Anthony Murdoch Prentice Computer Centre /0\ Phone (07) 3774078 University of Qld
jbayer@ispi.COM (Jonathan Bayer) (07/16/90)
ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: >Doesn't the i486 use a pipeline mechanism for instruction loading ? Intel also optimized several of the most often used instructions. JB -- Jonathan Bayer Intelligent Software Products, Inc. (201) 245-5922 500 Oakwood Ave. jbayer@ispi.COM Roselle Park, NJ 07204
petros@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (Somebody get me a Doctor) (07/18/90)
In article <1990Jul16.054325.2190@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au> ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: >a516@mindlink.UUCP (Jordan Melville) writes: >>In article <217@news.nd.edu>, laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) wrote: >>> There would be no difference in speed between a 386 with a math >>> coprocessor and a 486. The 486 chip is a 386 + the math coprocessor in >>> one. Intel considers the 486 as a part of the 386 family. > >>Although this may be true, you forget that the 486 has 8k of cache right on the >>processor, plus the chip IS more efficient that a 386+387 chip. The times >>should be close, but measurably different. > >Doesn't the i486 use a pipeline mechanism for instruction loading ? > According to Lewis C., Eggebrecht in Interfacing to the IBM Personal COmputer. The following summary of 486 enhancements are quoted from the above book - addition of the 897 coprocessor [as noted in previous article] - Addition of an 8K instruction and data cache system - modification of the bus interface to support single clock burst data transfers (16 bytes in five clock cycles) - Support for a second-level cache. The book goes on to say that a 486 is about twice as fast as a 386 at the same clock rate. The primary improvement being the floating point processor. Other reasons include instruction queue(32-byte), burst mode bus operation, integrated cache, reduced number of clock cycles per instruction and rated clock speeds rumored to go as high as 50MHz. barry
truong@wk35..nas.nasa.gov (Tuong C. Truong) (07/19/90)
Hi netters, While we are on the subject of the 486/25, can some hardware GURU or someone with a list of which i486 CPUs have bugs. I would like to know like which series (ie. B3, B4, SX249, X308, etc...)? I am thinking of getting a 486 machine from a "CHEAPER" dealer, but afraid of ending up with a bugged CPU. Email me if you have any informations. Mega-Thanks.