Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Can we avoid speculating until the TT actually ships, please?
Message-ID: <1990Jun11.235337.26399@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 11 Jun 90 23:53:37 GMT
References: <1990Jun6.212710.15236@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <5440123@hplsla.HP.COM>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 24

In article <5440123@hplsla.HP.COM> andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) writes:
>
>I erroneously assumed people would recognize Darek Mihocka as co-author 
>of the Quick Index benchmark utility for the ST, and therefore surmise 
>he used that as the basis of his report.

This report was published in this week's Z*Net.  He stated that the TT
ran 350% to 500% of a straight ST on the Quick Index benchmark with
the cache on, and 30% slower with the cache off. I would interpret
this to mean that it ran 250% to 350% faster with the cache off.

He also said that it appears that the TT is only 30% faster than an ST
with a T16 accellerator board, on screen redraws. If that's where the
"1/3" figure is coming from, then 1/3 is not a good number to describe
the speedup you get on a typical application. No benchmarks for
programs which do floating point, and it would seem that the TT he was
using did not have any "fast ram" in it, either. It would be nice to
see some more benchmarks.

Z*Net # 523 may be ftped from terminator.cc.umich.edu.

--
"Perhaps I'm commenting a bit cynically, but I think I'm qualified to."
                                              - Dan Bernstein