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
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (07/23/90)
From article <217@news.nd.edu>, by laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner): >> 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. Just to clear up a bit of confusion in the benchmarks I posted earlier. These benchmarks gave separate results for a run using the 80486, and the run using the 80x87. People have correctly pointed out that the math coprocessor is built into the 80486, so they were confused as to why I have two figures. The two figures represent TWO BENCHMARK PROGRAMS. The source code is identical, except that one uses the coprocessor for its math functions and the other doesn't. As for the difference in speed. I don't explain it. I just posted the results of the benchmark. Also, I think I said it was a PS/2 Model 80/486 that I benchmarked. That was a typo. It should have been a PS/2 model 70/486 - Kevin Lowey