HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pettengill@cvg.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: wanted: benchmark results for DEC alpha
Keywords: Dec alpha
Reply-To: pettengill@cvg.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 01:34:29 GMT


In article <1992Oct8.091026.9013@nntp.nta.no>, justin@scs.leeds.ac.uk (J M Ware) writes:

|>I'm looking for any pointers on where to find benchmark results for the new DEC
|>wonder-chip 'alpha'.  Preferably ones done by someone other than DEC.  I have
|>been quoted by someone that the new DEC alpha performed his Finite Element Code
|>14 times faster than his DEC5000/200 -- is this likely?

I have no idea how one would benchmark a chip against a system.  Would you care to
explain your methodology?  You can buy the 21064 chip today and do the benchmarks
yourself.  ;-)

If we consider the DEC 5000 Model 200 to be a 20 somethingmark machine (I don't know
the SPECmark (tm) for that system), then this would put that system into the 280 xmark
class; that is not a reasonable number for the first machines to be announced.
But I wouldn't be surprised that it is possible to build a system using the 21064
that does perform at that level, assuming that you have lots of money or are willing
to limit the scope of the system to the chip cache.  (It's possible to load the cache
and begin executing code without any memory system; see the chip spec for details.) 

If you are interested in benchmarking an Alpha AXP (tm) system, that can be arranged for
certain applications, the primary restriction at this time being that the source code
be FORTRAN.  Sufficient testing has been completed with FORTRAN to believe that the
results of such benchmark realistically reflect the performance of the released system,
which includes hardware and software.  I would assume that the above code is written in
FORTRAN, so that the figure cited by the `someone' is probably reasonable.  Of course,
what is missing is the information on the hardware platform, compiler versions, the
source code, and so on that are required to interpret the results.  However it is very
unlikely that the figure cited is due to the compiler failing to generate correct code.

I assume that the reason for this posting is that you are skeptical of the figure cited.
This is in large part the reason that we haven't released any benchmark numbers.  If
you look at the benchmark numbers for virtually every system produced, the individual
numbers indicate widely varying degrees of speed up relative to a reference system.
You need to have a complete set of benchmark numbers, not just the great ones, to get
any sort of feel for the performance of the system.  Even then, the performance YOU
see will depend on YOUR application.

|>Incidentally if anyone has news of what stage DEC are in making the alpha chip
|>available on a large scale, can they let me know.

As far as I know, the chip is available in only one size and that is on a pretty
small scale.  ;-)

mulp
DEC, CVG cluster busters
`you make it, I'll break it'
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.unix.misc
From: vanepp@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter Van Epp)
Subject: Re: NFS performance on AUSPEX ?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:50:53 GMT

murai@rd.yahata.enicom.nsc.co.jp (Toshifumi Murai) writes:


>I'm looking for report of NFS performance on AUSPEX(NS3000) compared
>with SparcStation2.
>Does anyone have any report about the NFS performance?

>Thanks in advance,
>Toshifumi Murai

>--
>    Nippon Steel Information & Communication Systems Inc.
>    Toshifumi Murai	murai@rd.yahata.enicom.nsc.co.jp
>		TEL : 093-872-6023   FAX : 093-872-6272
>				

Auspex has several papers on the subject (although probably not against a
Sparc2, the 490 or 690 servers are more often considered the compitition).
One contact point at Auspex would be mstevens@asupex.com, I expect that 
Mike could pass you along to the correct person. 
	We have an Auspex NS5000 with 18 gigs of disk and 6 Ethernet ports
and are very happy with it but I can't say that we have ever compared it 
(in real life anyway) with a Sun. 

Peter Van Epp / Operations and Technical Support 
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: justin@scs.leeds.ac.uk (J M Ware)
Subject: wanted: benchmark results for DEC alpha
Originator: justin@csparc9
Keywords: Dec alpha
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 09:10:26 GMT


I'm looking for any pointers on where to find benchmark results for the new DEC
wonder-chip 'alpha'.  Preferably ones done by someone other than DEC.  I have
been quoted by someone that the new DEC alpha performed his Finite Element Code
14 times faster than his DEC5000/200 -- is this likely?

Incidentally if anyone has news of what stage DEC are in making the alpha chip
available on a large scale, can they let me know.

Thanks in advance,

Justin M. Ware

justin@scs.leeds.ac.uk                   - research assistant, dogsbody, grunt.
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: wanted: benchmark results for DEC alpha
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:37:14 GMT

In article <SHAH.92Oct8100802@santur.tay1.dec.com>, shah@tay1.dec.com (Amitabh Shah) writes:
>The Alpha-based machines are being shipped to our software partners and some
>customers with a no-benchmarking policy.

OK, I can believe that.

>While it is certainly likely that Alpha will perform 14 times faster than a
>DEC5000/200 on that application, no one could have tested this in the first
>place without violating the no-benchmarking policy.

This is wrong since there's a body of people with access to Alpha machines
that aren't included in the set of "software partners and some customers". 
Hint: DEC employees.

And don't tell me DEC isn't running benchmarks on them because it would be a
lie.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: bt@irfu.se (Bo Thide')
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: Latest flops.c results
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:39:31 GMT
Distribution: comp.benchmarks
Organization: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden

In article <1992Oct14.170837.7580@convex.com> hamrick@convex.com (Ed Hamrick) writes:
>
[stuff deleted desribing a code change in flops.c]
>
>A summary of the results is:
>

With "flopvec", I obtain:



System           Compiler                    CPU/FPU    CPU     MFLOPS  REF
                                                        FPU          
                                                       (MHz)               
---------------- ------------------------- ---------- ------ --------- ----
HP 9000/730      cc +OS +O3 HP-UX 8.07      PA-RISC1.1   66. 31.6494
HP 9000/720      cc +OS +O3 HP-UX 8.07      PA-RISC1.1   50. 24.0046


Bo
-- 
   ^   Bo Thide'--------------------------------------------------------------
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|      Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Fax: (+46) 18-403100.  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: bt@irfu.se      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt  
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-
From: shah@tay1.dec.com (Amitabh Shah)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: wanted: benchmark results for DEC alpha
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:56:15 GMT
	<1992Oct8.163714.19419@ornl.gov>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, TAY1, Littleton MA


On Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:37:14 GMT, @ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) said:

> In article <SHAH.92Oct8100802@santur.tay1.dec.com>, shah@tay1.dec.com
(Amitabh Shah) writes:

>>While it is certainly likely that Alpha will perform 14 times faster than a
>>DEC5000/200 on that application, no one could have tested this in the first
>>place without violating the no-benchmarking policy.

> This is wrong since there's a body of people with access to Alpha machines
> that aren't included in the set of "software partners and some customers". 
> Hint: DEC employees.

> And don't tell me DEC isn't running benchmarks on them because it would be a
> lie.

Oh, I never implied that DEC is not running benchmarks on Alpha. We certainly
are. But even in this case, some people (mostly the Alpha hardware and
software developers) can do more than others (like me). However, if a DEC
employee told an outsider about any benchmark result, without a
non-disclosure, they would certainly be violating the policy. 

I see your point though: I should have worded my comment above more carefully.
I assumed that the original author was referring to an outside source when he
talked about the performance, since I could not *imagine* a DEC employee
violatiing the policy :-). I hope you see my point. 

-amitabh.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Amitabh Shah                                   shah@tay1.dec.com----(INTERNET)
Digital Equipment Corporation                  santur::shah----------(EASYNET)
Software Performance Group                     +1 508 952 4430---------(PHONE)
151 Taylor St. Littleton MA 01460              +1 508 952 4197-----------(FAX)
From: allison@hal.COM (Dennis Allison)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: CERN Benchmark Set
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:54:36 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: sumeru.hal.com

I am instested in obtaining a copy of a benchmark program or suite 
known as the "Cern Benchmarks".  I presume this is program or set of 
programs used at Cern to measure computer performance in much the same
way that the Livermore Loops program was/is used.  A search of a few
archives and a short exchange with Archie as well as e-mail to a few
friends and associates have not turned up a copy.  Can anyone tell me
whether they reside on the net and from whence a copy can be obtained?
Many thanks.  (reply by e-mail and I will post a summary)
	-dra
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: [l/m 3/17/92] Measurement environments		(12/28) c.be FAQ
Keywords: who, what, where, when, why, how
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 11:25:16 GMT
Reply-To: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)

12	Measurement environments			<This panel>
13	SLALOM
14
15	12 Ways to Fool the Masses with Benchmarks
16	SPEC
17	Benchmark invalidation methods
18
19	WPI Benchmark
20	Equivalence
21	TPC
22
23
24
25	Ridiculously short benchmarks
26	Other miscellaneous benchmarks
27
28	References
1	Introduction to FAQ chain and netiquette
2
3	PERFECT
4
5	Performance Metrics
6	Temporary scaffold of New FAQ material
7	Music to benchmark by
8	Benchmark types
9	Linpack
10
11	NIST source and .orgs

Benchmarking environments
Taxonomy described by: A, B, C, D, E
Examples:
	A Cray Y-MP or better with integrated hardware performance monitor
	B Cray-2, Convex C-1/C-2...
	C VAX-11/780, IBM PC, IBM 370-class
	D Apple II, Timex Sinclair
	E Incomplete hardware, chip, module, board-level

An A environment should have state of the art hardware and
software to aid benchmarking.  Hardware should be minimally or non-intrusive.
This category should change with time.  The SS-1 should have a
more programmable HPM, this would lower the Y-MP down into
a B environment (can stay A if no other HPM type hardware becomes
predominant).  This is akin to high-precision Cesium clocks.

A B environment is a "good" environment to do benchmarking.
It has as a minimal, a near cycle-time clock, profiling software,
etc.  The environment at this level or higher may also be more hostile
for measurement.  Good performance is likely to be an issue, so the
compilers will have good optimizers.

A C environment is an "average" benchmarking environment.
This is just typical: a 60 or 100 Hz clock.  Some profiling software.

A D environment is a difficult environment to do benchmarking.
This environment may not have a clock or software to help the poor
benchmarker.  Timing by wrist watch or maybe oscilliscope.
Software? What software?

An E environment:
Another difficult environment to do benchmarking.  It might have software.
It might be an incomplete computer: a processing using of a larger
multiprocessor: it touches on the issue of composition.

If dealing with a simulator:
there maybe an F category for simulated timing.

                   ^ A  
                s / \ r                
               m /   \ c              
              h /     \ h            
             t /       \ i          
            i /         \ t        
           r /           \ e      
          o /             \ c    
         g /               \ t  
        l /                 \ u
       A /                   \ r
        <_____________________> e   
                Language
 
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: "mike sullivan" <mike.sullivan@canrem.com>
Subject: info on cyrix 486 chip
Reply-To: "mike sullivan" <mike.sullivan@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:25:47 EST

I'm trying to find some information on the Cyrix 486 chip and I was told
that BAPCO benchmark may be able to evaluate this for me.
The reason I need this information is because I'm trying to decide
between the Intel 486 or the Cyrix 486. The difference in price is
roughly $460.
        Can someone provide the results of a test or their own personnal
opinion is this subject?

Thank you, Mike Sullivan ...
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: ph@masi.ibp.fr (Philippe Homond)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: OODBMS benchmark (source)
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:21:59 GMT
Organization: Universite Paris VI/Paris VII
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

I'd like to know where i could find (via ftp) source of OODBMS benchmark.
I am particularly interested by a benchmark from RG Cattel.

Thank's.
From: waw@cup.portal.com (Warren Charles Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Novell Benchmarks
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 92 16:51:12 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Hello,


Just seeing off hand if anyone has any info on a Novell benchmarking
program for measuring Ethernet transfer rates for PC-Ethernet Adapter
cards.  3Com used it test their new EtherLink III adapter card.

"Novell's Perform 3 is an excellent tool for measuring adapter/driver
 performance, because there is no hard disk activity during the timed
 portions of the test."

Line was in a marketing brochure by 3Com discussing their new EtherLink III
board.  The actual benchmarking was done by a network consulting firm called
LANQuest Labs.

Ideally, I would like the source code which, some have claim, is
publically available from CompuServe.  Is there an ftp site availble
for this?

Thanks all for your time...

Warren Wong
Mitsubishi Electronics
408-730-5900
Internet: warren@nort.asicsv.mela.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seen off a bumper sticker:

    Picard/Riker for office
                             ---  "Make it so"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: strange@zk3.dec.com (Steve Strange)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: wanted: benchmark results for DEC alpha
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:36:39 GMT
	<1992Oct8.163714.19419@ornl.gov>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp.

In article <1992Oct8.163714.19419@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

   >While it is certainly likely that Alpha will perform 14 times faster than a
   >DEC5000/200 on that application, no one could have tested this in the first
   >place without violating the no-benchmarking policy.

   This is wrong since there's a body of people with access to Alpha machines
   that aren't included in the set of "software partners and some customers". 
   Hint: DEC employees.

   And don't tell me DEC isn't running benchmarks on them because it would be a
   lie.

Well, of _course_ we're running benchmarks on the machines.  We (DEC)
have to have some way of knowing if the compiler and OS optmizations
we're doing are having a significant overall effect on the
performance.  The point is we can't release the results because they
could be wildly inaccurate in predicting the performance of the
production machines when they come out.  This is especially true of
RISC architectures because all the brains are in the compilers, which
are constantly being improved.  If DEC released some of these
preliminary numbers, they would probably be lower than the 'real'
numbers will be, but we wouldn't know how much lower.

Disclaimer: My opinions only.  Also, I'm not personally running any
benchmarks, so please don't ask me for numbers.

	Steve
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: jwreilly@mipos2.intel.com (Jeffrey Reilly)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: info on cyrix 486 chip
Summary: BAPCo
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:54:19 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA

In article <1992Oct13.4866.2086@dosgate> "mike sullivan" <mike.sullivan@canrem.com> writes:
>I'm trying to find some information on the Cyrix 486 chip and I was told
>that BAPCO benchmark may be able to evaluate this for me.
>The reason I need this information is because I'm trying to decide
>between the Intel 486 or the Cyrix 486. The difference in price is
>roughly $460.
>        Can someone provide the results of a test or their own personnal
>opinion is this subject?
>

Of course when looking for performance information, you need to make sure the
measure matches what you are using the machine for. BAPCo provides the SYSmark92
suite to measure system (CPU, disk, video; note that performance of SYSmark92 is
NOT just a function of CPU) in a DOS/Windows environment. If this 
your environment read on.

The Business Application Performance Corporation (BAPCo) developed an application
based suite of benchmarks designed to measure the performance of Personal
Computers. The suite and metric are named SYSmark92. The suite contains "pruned"
versions (by negotiation with software publishers) of popular programs such as
WORD For Windows, Lotus 1-2-3, PageMaker, etc. and BAPCo determined workloads for
each.

All SYSmark92 results must be reported in a full disclosure report to BAPCo before
those results are publically announced.

They also publish a Newsletter called the BAPCo Report which contains summary
pages for various machines. The Newsletter is published quarterly and Volume
1, Issue 1 is cover dated August 92. 

Information about the SYSmark92 suite and the BAPCo Newsletter can be obtained at:

Business Applications Performance Corp.
M/S NW1-20
2801 Northwestern Parkway
Santa Clara, Ca 95052
Phone: (408) 988-7654
Fax: (408) 765-4920

SYSmark92 costs $795 and the BAPCo Report is $250 for a year subscription.

As far as I know no Cyrix numbers have been reported to BAPCo (there are none
in the BAPCo Report). Suggestions are to call Cyrix and ask why they haven't 
submitted numbers or buy the suite and run your own test.

Jeff

Jeff Reilly			Performance Benchmarking And Analysis
jwreilly@mipos2.intel.com	Intel Corporation
(408) 765 - 5909		Santa Clara, California
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: bt@irfu.se (Bo Thide')
Subject: Re: wanted: benchmark results for DEC alpha
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:02:35 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
Keywords: Dec alpha

In article <11OCT199220394828@ernest.mit.edu> chuck@ernest.mit.edu (Chuck Parsons) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.013429.29995@e2big.mko.dec.com>, pettengill@cvg.enet.dec.com ()       writes...

[stuff deleted]

>> 
>   I have seen one set of benchmark results for some quite large 
>fortran programs, Alpha came out more than twice as fast as an HP 720 snake.
>It was a non-production machine with early compiliers so the ratio
>should get bigger....
>
>
>Sorry, I just don't have anymore details, I wasn't supposed to see these
>results (but I did). What about those rumours that production Alphas will
>ship in December?
>
>Regards, Chuck 

I have seen benchmarks results comparing the Alpha with HP's of the same
generation (the new machines based on the HP PA RISC 7110 Thunderbird
CPU; the first workstation model in this new series is due any day now)
that show that the HP's are up to 50% *faster* than the Alpha.
Remember, the 720 is HP's mid-range machine of the March, 1991 vintage
(HP PA RISC 1.1).

Bo
-- 
   ^   Bo Thide'--------------------------------------------------------------
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|      Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Fax: (+46) 18-403100.  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: bt@irfu.se      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt  
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-
Xref: sparky comp.benchmarks:1508 comp.sys.sun.misc:4576 comp.unix.misc:3904
From: murai@rd.yahata.enicom.nsc.co.jp (Toshifumi Murai)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.unix.misc
Subject: NFS performance on AUSPEX ?
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:52:16 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Nishi-Nihon Regional Office, NIPPON STEEL Information &
	Communication Systems Inc., Japan


I'm looking for report of NFS performance on AUSPEX(NS3000) compared
with SparcStation2.
Does anyone have any report about the NFS performance?

Thanks in advance,
Toshifumi Murai

--
    Nippon Steel Information & Communication Systems Inc.
    Toshifumi Murai	murai@rd.yahata.enicom.nsc.co.jp
		TEL : 093-872-6023   FAX : 093-872-6272
From: shafer@CS.ColoState.EDU (spencer shafer)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: SPEC92 Results for 386/33MHz
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:13:16 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

Has anyone seen the SPECfp92 and SPECint92 results for a 
386/33MHz platform?  Would like to know just for sense of
relation to previous SPEC suite results.

Thanks

-- 
/\__________________________________________________________________/\
||                     DAVID HAILE                                  ||
|| email:shafer@handel.cs.colostate.edu    Work Phone: 303-498-0901 ||
\/------------------------------------------------------------------\/
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
From: oneill@yngstr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Info needed about CHARMm and X-PLORE Benchmarks
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:28:33 GMT


Information (descriptions and available vendors' results) about CHARMm and
X-PLORE benchmarks wanted.

Thanks.   Email please.  
---
cheryle oneill		
		(INTERNET,UUCP) oneill@oldtmr.enet.dec.com
		(UUCP)		...!decwrl!oldtmr.enet!oneill
		(INTERNET)	oneill%oldtmr.enet@decwrl.dec.com
---
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks