Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bigsur!bnr-rsc!bcarh185!schow
From: schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80960CA v 68040 comparative benchmark
Message-ID: <3440@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Date: 11 Oct 90 18:37:53 GMT
References: <18653.27132b53@windy.dsir.govt.nz>
Sender: news@bnr-rsc.UUCP
Reply-To: bcarh185!schow@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 30
Summary:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <18653.27132b53@windy.dsir.govt.nz> srghgcp@windy.dsir.govt.nz writes:
>We are in the business of designing high performance data communications
>servers, and are about to embark on new development work with FDDI. We
>have been evaluating two processors (Intel 80960CA and Motorola 68040)
>as compute engines. We currently use the 68020. We have 
>completed benchmarking the 80960CA, with the following results;
> [Dhrystone numbers]
>Food for thought though eh? Anyone else got any figures or comment...I can
>supply more details if needed.

First of all, (like everyone else), I will point out that Dhrystone
(or any other benchmark) does not count as much your actual application. To
get a real handle, run your own code.

I have looked at the Intel i960 family in some detail and like it a lot. I
looked at it as a candidate for high-reliability high-performance embedded
controller for communications (yes, including FDDI. For the embedded
processor niche, the i960 family has a lot going for it.
E.g., it has good fault detection/isolation, works well with DRAM, fast
procedure calls, low cost, nice debugging/tracing support, good range of
performace in family, good bit/bitfield handling, etc.

The major problem for us (at least with the early/cheap processors) is bus
bandwidth. Check out your cache hit-rates design your memory system accordingly.


Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!uunet!bnrgate!bcarh185!schow
(613) 763-2831               ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.