Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!exodus-bb!khb From: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: SPECmarks for RS/6000 systems - lies??? Message-ID: Date: 8 Oct 90 21:40:53 GMT References: <4734@lure.latrobe.edu.au> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Organization: Sun MegaSystems Lines: 26 In-reply-to: CCHD@lure.latrobe.edu.au's message of 4 Oct 90 09:50:31 GMT In article <4734@lure.latrobe.edu.au> CCHD@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Huw Davies - La Trobe University Computer Centre) writes: "There also seems to be a problem with replicating IBM's RS6000 SPECmark results, and with achieving the expected levels of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ performance with other code. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Others have already commented on the left hand side of the and at length. While the same is true for the right hand side, I don't think we can flog this pony enough. Looking at just one number won't/can't/will never provide a reasonable basis for performance forecasting, across differing arch+implementation+applications This does not imply any evil intent on the part of the IBM designers, compiler implementors, etc. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith H. Bierman kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM | khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33 | (415 336 2648) Mountain View, CA 94043