Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!eutrc3!euteal!blitter
From: blitter@ele.tue.nl (Paul Derks)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Can I Trust Performance Results?
Message-ID: <134@euteal.ele.tue.nl>
Date: 19 Oct 89 13:07:58 GMT
References: <3931.253b0031@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 25

In article <3931.253b0031@uwovax.uwo.ca> les@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
>
> I have a 286 clone with a 80286-10 processor running at a clock speed of
>12MHz.  Running the Landmark Speed Test indicates that its equivalent to a
>IBM AT running at 16MHz!  Why?  How does it get the extra thoughput, or can
>a processor 'fool' a performance tester?
>
> I also get interesting results when measuring Dhrystones against a 386SX.
>The 286 measurement is 3,034 Dhrystones, while the 386SX at 16MHz is only
>2,845.  The measurement software in this case is called QAPLUS.

On the screen of Landmark it says: This system is running as an IBM AT at
?? Mhz. The original AT has 1 waitstate on all memory accesses. This means
that a system running at 12 Mhz 0 waitstates executes software as fast as an
16 MHz system with 1 wait state.
I don't know QAPLUS but if the SX runs at 16 MHz 1 wait state the results 
make sense. However the SX can run 32 bits software and is much faster than
a 286 in that mode.
Processor frequency alone says NOTHING! The memory system makes all the 
difference. You should ask questions like: How fast are the RAM chips,
120 ns, 100 ns or 80 ns. Is the memory interleaved, is there a cache? etc.

So, at first glance the results look resonably.

Paul Derks