From: chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY)
Subject: Re: DIR
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:44:00 GMT

Just to remember Mike, these were not my postings, but saved articles from the
past.
>
>>This is BS also. The 486 is slightly *faster* than the 040 on integer
>>operations and slower by about 40% on floating point.  This fact
>
>Up to here I see no facts.
>
>>Don't take my word for it. Here are SPECmark numbers from an objective
>>source:
>
>SPECmarks evaluate systems, not processors.
>
>>        Vendor      Moto  Moto  Intel Sun   MIPS  Moto  IBM     Intel
>>        Achitecture 68040 68040 486   SPARC R3000 88000 RS/6000 i860
>>        Cache       none  128K  128K  128K  128K  128K  64K/8K  none
>>        Clock (MHz) 25    25    25    25    25    25    25      33  
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Integer gcc         12.4  13.8  13.8  13.8  15.5  17.5  17.8   11.5
>>        espresso    12.8  13.4  12.2  11.6  17.7  19.4  20.7   20.0
>>        li          14.9  15.5  16.8  11.2  20.4  20.7  19.8   17.7
>
>						   ^^^^^^^^^^
>says: en par
>
>>FP      spice2g6    11.8  13.1  8.8   11.4  12.1  12.5  27.6   14.8
>>        doduc       7.7   8.1   5.8   9.5   15.9  10.1  27.7   15.6
>>        nasa7       11.5  12.1  5.8   14.0  18.1  15.2  35.5   45.0
>>        matrix300   10.8  11.5  9.5   14.7  13.8  18.4  21.8   21.5
>>        fpppp       12.1  13.4  7.0   13.1  17.8  14.7  54.7   21.8
>>        tomcatv     8.4   9.1   4.3   8.2   13.9  11.6  75.7   34.0
>
>                           ^^^^^^^^^
>says: 040 is 25-110% faster in FP. This shows you that FP speed isn't
>measured (the ratio should be closer to a constant).
>
>>systems are the HP 425t, HP 425s, an unspecified 486 system, Sun 
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I don't know if the HP 425 uses no compromises.. but an unspecified
>486 system may waste as much on resources to get maximum speed.
>
>>In the FAQ's on comp.unix.aux, there is a line saying
>>that a Quadra 950 running AUX 3.0 does about 7 SPECmarks.
>>For comparison, A DECstation 5000/120 does about
>>14 SPECmarks (22 MIPS)
>
>This again evaluates systems (and most likely the performance of the
>compiler on that system).
>
>>	cpu			MIPS		MFLOPS
>>	040-25 Mhz		15-18		1.6-2.4
>>	486-33 Mhz		15-16		1.8-2.6  (w/o Weitek)
>
>This time the 486 (at 33MHz) is considered even faster at FP which should
>contradict the above numbers.
>

How oddly you forget to look at what was measured above, it was a 486-25!
and then it was the 486-33 here instead, you should look at it again. 

>>But I do suggest having a glance at the PC mag may 1992 issue and the BYTE
>>which had the MFLOPS ratings "486DX33 faster than the 040-25 in MFLOPS".
>
>The PC mag says: PC is faster than Apple.

What I was told is APPLE used the same tatic for their test as PC mag did.

>
>>============================================================================
>>System                 K Dhrystones     K Whetstones    MFLOPS     SPECmarks
>>                         (1.1/2.0)      (Sing/Dbl)     (S/D)
>
>>NextStation Turbo        32.3/30.5        5.7/7.5       2.5/2.3      14.1
>>  (33MHz 040)
>
>>NextStation              24.8/22.9        4.2/5.5       1.8/1.6      ??
>>  (25MHz 040)
>
>>HP 9000/425e             58.1/39.2        10.9/10.8     1.7/1.6      10.3
>>  (25MHz 040)
>
>Here we see two 2 040-boxes where one is 30-100% faster on dhrystone
>and whetstone but the MFLOPs value (measured with what ?) as well as
>the SPECmark value are worse. Fascinating.
>

Not all 040 boxes will give you the same results, just like all 486DX machines
vary as well.

>>DECstation 5000/125      41.7/36.8        16.6/13.0     6.3/2.6      14.2
>>  (25MHz R3000)
>>I would suggest that, with the right compilier (such as gcc), the Quadras
>>would fall quite nicely in this catagory...
>
>A true word.
>
>Now, a "fact" that I can add: A scientific calulation that is one of our
>(our==speckle imaging group) main CPU burners results in:
>
>Calculation of 1 Million (double precision) bispectrum elements:
>
>System                                                         seconds
>
>A3000/25MHz Lattice C 5.04 compiler
>lc -O -m2 -f8 -Lm                                                   97
>A3000/25MHz Lattice C 5.10b compiler
>lc -O -m3 -f8 -Llib:lcm881.lib                                      89
>A3000/25MHz Mercury 68040/33MHz accelerator LC 5.04 compiler
>lc -O -m2 -f8 -Lm                                                   16
>DECstation 5000/200 (R3000 25MHz) GNU C Compiler 1.39
>gcc -g -O -traditional -fstrength-reduce -fcombine-regs             15
>DECstation 5000/200 (R3000 25MHz) Ultrix 4.2 C Compiler
>cc -O4                                                              15
>DECstation 5000/125 (R3000 25MHz) GNU C Compiler 1.39
>gcc -g -O -traditional -fstrength-reduce -fcombine-regs             18
>HP 9000/730 HPUX 8.05 C Compiler
>cc +O3																6.4
>SGI Indigo (R3000 33MHz) IRIX 4.0 C Compiler
>cc -O                                                                11
>SparcStation 10 Solaris 2 C Compiler
>cc -O2                                                              8.1
>
>Sorry, I couldn't find a 486 box with a compiler that could compile
>the program. But according to the test the 040 runs FP faster than
>a DECstation 5000/125.
>
>Regards,
>-- 
>Michael van Elst
>UUCP:     universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
>Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
>                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."

I understand Mike (sorry its Michael isn't it.). Well Michael, I think I did
mention that alot of these benches don't really matter.  I know you and I
have different opinions and I'm not going any further to say whose right.
Thanks for your thoughts.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy