Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!maddog!brooks
From: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Killer Micros and vectorized code
Message-ID: <53163@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 21 Mar 90 06:17:55 GMT
References: <51771@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <100598@convex.convex.com> <52661@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <100701@convex.convex.com>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 18

In article <100701@convex.convex.com> hamrick@convex1.convex.com (Ed Hamrick) writes:
>I'd be happy to run these programs on a C210.  I think you'd find that
>the C210 does much better than the 25 MHz clock would otherwise lead
>you to predict.

A friendly fellow on the Internet has taken care of this for you.
I won't use his name to protect the innocent!

The score for the network simulator SIM was 31% of IBM 530 performance.
The score for the Monte Carlo was 46% of IBM 530 performance.
The Convex C2 looks pretty good relative to the XMP, given the price,
but its performance pales against any Killer Micro.

Both programs were compiled with -O2.  The clock speed of the 530
is the same as that of the C210, I would say that the IBM is doing
something nice.  The Convex compilers are nothing to sneeze at.

brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp