as@prg.ox.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) (05/08/91)
Dave Redman obtains the following results for Dhrystone (2.1?) benchmarks. > Machine Dhyrstones per sec > ARM2 5289 > ARM3 @ 25Mhz 14883 > SUN3/60 2888 > SUN/Spark1 8000 > SUN/Spark2 16000 The ARM results are exactly in line with what I've observed but I am *amazed* at the low figures for the SUN machines. I am sure the SS1 does much more than 8000 dhrystones. I think 18000 is much nearer the mark - but I don't recall the last benchmark postings. Certainly I don't believe 8000 - the thing clocks at 20Mhz and has a fair sized cache. Furthermore, I have never known it to run *anything* slower than my 30Mhz ARM3 A410. In fact things typically seem to run around 50 per cent faster (unless you do lots of 32x32 integer multiplies :-) ). I guess this is probably due to faster main memory. The SS2 is approximately twice as fast again, an ARM-3 A4x0 simply isn't in the same ballpark. The SUN 3/60 (25Mhz 68020) when I observe it chugs along somewhere between ARM2 and ARM3 A4x0's. 2900 dhrystones is more SUN3/50 or Macintosh-II territory. Can anyone shed any light on Dave's mysterious results? Andrew Stevens Programmming Research Group JANET: Andrew.Stevens@uk.ac.oxford.prg Oxford University Computing Laboratory INTERNET: Andrew.Stevens@prg.ox.ac.uk 11 Keble Road, Oxford, England UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!ox-prg!as OX1 3QD
nbvs@cl.cam.ac.uk (Nicko van Someren) (05/10/91)
In article <1694@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk> as@prg.ox.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) writes: > >Dave Redman obtains the following results for Dhrystone (2.1?) >benchmarks. > >> Machine Dhyrstones per sec >> ARM2 5289 >> ARM3 @ 25Mhz 14883 >> SUN3/60 2888 >> SUN/Spark1 8000 >> SUN/Spark2 16000 > >The ARM results are exactly in line with what I've observed but >I am *amazed* at the low figures for the SUN machines. I am >sure the SS1 does much more than 8000 dhrystones. I think 18000 >is much nearer the mark - but I don't recall the last benchmark >postings. Certainly I don't believe 8000 - the thing clocks at >20Mhz and has a fair sized cache. Furthermore, I have never known >it to run *anything* slower than my 30Mhz ARM3 A410. In fact things >typically seem to run around 50 per cent faster (unless you do >lots of 32x32 integer multiplies :-) ). I guess this is >probably due to faster main memory. The SS2 is approximately >twice as fast again, an ARM-3 A4x0 simply isn't in the same ballpark. >The SUN 3/60 (25Mhz 68020) when I observe it chugs along somewhere between >ARM2 and ARM3 A4x0's. 2900 dhrystones is more SUN3/50 or Macintosh-II >territory. > >Can anyone shed any light on Dave's mysterious results? I went and tried it. The above figures seem about right if you use the SUN standard compiler but if you use gcc the SUN goes lots faster (50%). Roll on gcc for the Archi.! +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nicko van Someren, nbvs@cl.cam.ac.uk, (44) 223 358707 or (44) 860 498903 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ecwu61@castle.ed.ac.uk (R Renwick) (05/10/91)
In article <1694@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk> as@prg.ox.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) writes: > >Dave Redman obtains the following results for Dhrystone (2.1?) >benchmarks. > >> Machine Dhyrstones per sec >> ARM2 5289 >> ARM3 @ 25Mhz 14883 >> SUN3/60 2888 >> SUN/Spark1 8000 >> SUN/Spark2 16000 > >The ARM results are exactly in line with what I've observed but >I am *amazed* at the low figures for the SUN machines. I am >sure the SS1 does much more than 8000 dhrystones. I think 18000 >is much nearer the mark - but I don't recall the last benchmark >postings. Certainly I don't believe 8000 - the thing clocks at >20Mhz and has a fair sized cache. ...... Well here are the sun figures I have found using the same benchmarks as Dave. Machine Dhrystones/sec Sparc SLC 10000 Sparc 2 25000 Sun 3/60 3333 Sorry, can't seem to find a sparc 1 to try :-( I'm not sure whether SLC's are sparc 1 or 2 but I could find out if pushed. The sparc station 2 figures were obtained on a Sparc 2 with 64Mb of ram and 100Mb of local swap space and just a tad more expensive than a 540 :-) The sparc 2 also had 8 users on it. So all in all not a bad performance. I'd say that Dave's 8000 for a sparc 1 looks about right to me judging by the SLC figure I gave. Rik
news@prg.ox.ac.uk (news) (05/13/91)
My mystification at the SUN vs Arch dhrystone ratings (what would Freud say about this ? :-) ) abates. Dave Redman got > Machine Dhyrstones per sec > ARM2 5289 > ARM3 @ 25Mhz 14883 > SUN3/60 2888 > SUN/Spark1 8000 > SUN/Spark2 16000 whilst Rik Renwick obtained > Machine Dhrystones/sec > Sparc SLC 10000 > Sparc 2 25000 > Sun 3/60 3333 It turns out these figures are right (mod deviation due to clock granularity etc) ... for the benchmark run. However, as run, the benchmark is more than a little unfair on the SUNs. This is because the benchmark (as given to me by Rik) uses the *default* optimisation level of the compilers. On the SUNs this is no optimisation at all, on the Arch this is full optimisation! If you use comparable optimisations (CSE, auto register, loop tweaking = default on the Arch, -O2 on SUN) the figures are (roughly): SPARCstation-1/SLC = 14500 (a -2 runs around twice as fast) SUN-3/60 = 4000 (gcc squeezes out around 4500) which is in line with published figures. The fact my 30Mhz ARM3 A410 runs *my* programs a lot slower than SPARCstation-1's is explained by the style of program: big, heavy register usage and pointer bashing. SUN's hardware - SPARC register windows and big (but dumb) cache - does well on the former two points. SUN's compiler does well on the latter because it can optimise pointers (and other stuff) in ways that Acorn's cannot. The fact that the machine my memories of run-time related to was a 1+ (25% faster clock) helped a bit too! Andrew Stevens Programmming Research Group JANET: Andrew.Stevens@uk.ac.oxford.prg Oxford University Computing Laboratory INTERNET: Andrew.Stevens@prg.ox.ac.uk 11 Keble Road, Oxford, England UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!ox-prg!as OX1 3QD
jpff@maths.bath.ac.uk (John ffitch) (05/13/91)
If you use the Norcroft C compiler on the SPARC you get even better Dhrystone figures that gcc with optimisation. The SUN compilers are really not very good. Also with Norcroft you get real ANSI. ==John PS I am biased
gcwillia@daisy.waterloo.edu (Graeme Williams) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May13.145154.21732@maths.bath.ac.uk> jpff@maths.bath.ac.uk (John ffitch) writes: > >If you use the Norcroft C compiler on the SPARC you get even better >Dhrystone figures that gcc with optimisation. The SUN compilers are >really not very good. Also with Norcroft you get real ANSI. OK I have to ask this - how do prices for Suns and ARM3 machines compare?? Graeme Williams gcwillia@daisy.waterloo.edu
nbvs@cl.cam.ac.uk (Nicko van Someren) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May13.192221.22184@watdragon.waterloo.edu> gcwillia@daisy.waterloo.edu (Graeme Williams) writes: >OK I have to ask this - how do prices for Suns and ARM3 machines compare?? I think that the cheepest Sparc IPC, which has about the same hardware spec as an R260 but has a 17" mono monitor and NO SunOS (pay more for it) is about 5650 quid, or was last time I looked. To have SunOS you need to pay an extra 250 for the CD ROM, 450 for the manuals and 650 for the CD ROM drive. Then you need to spend 300 on a thin-ether drop box if you don't want to pay more to have thick-ether wiring. That looks like 7300 quid to me, compared to 4000 for an R260 with an extra 300 for the on site service that Acorn make you get. Note that the R260 is alot faster than an R140 with an ARM3 as the RAM and disk speed make a great deal of differenc. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nicko van Someren, nbvs@cl.cam.ac.uk, (44) 223 358707 or (44) 860 498903 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+