Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!wuarchive!udel!haven!wam!ddev
From: ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Surely a IIFX blows an Amiga 3000 away, right?
Message-ID: <1990Oct11.031828.452@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 90 03:18:28 GMT
References: <1990Oct10.222343.8737@hoss.unl.edu> <1990Oct11.002137.11988@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET Posting)
Reply-To: ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe)
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Lines: 57

In article <1990Oct11.002137.11988@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) writes:
>In article <1990Oct10.222343.8737@hoss.unl.edu> 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes:
>>A friend of mine recently was bragging that an A3000/25/50 running the
>>AMAX-II mac plus emulator was leaving various Mac II's in the dust.
>>They were running Speedometer 2.5 and came up with following results:
>>
>>KWhets/sec: 882.4 (using FPU) 39.4 (not using FPU)
>>Dhrys/sec:  2871 FPU, 2717 not
>>Sieve:      3.70 sec FPU, 3.83 sec    
>>Savage err:  7.988e-10, 2.297e-11
>>Savage time: 8.52 sec FPU, 71.43 sec
>>Savage iterations: 25000 FPU, 5000
>>
>>CPU test: 6.40 (no FPU)
>>Math:     95.27 FPU, 5.24
>>Performance:  5.42 (no FPU)
>
>I'd be curious to see how various Macs performed.

Ok, here's my results, running on an original II (using Speedometer 2.5):

              w/FPU          w/o FPU
              -------        -------
KWhets/sec:   517.241        50.804
Dhryst/sec:   2979.146       2979.146
Sieve:        7.867          7.883
Savage time:  11.833         47.817
Savage iter:  25000          5000     

CPU test:     3.66           3.66
Math:         97.04          6.63
Performance:  -----          4.04

I was surprised to find out that my plain old macII with it's 16MHz '020
beat out the A3000's 25MHz '030 w/ AMAX in most all of these benchmarks. 
Of course, the CPU test put the mac into the dirt, but what do you expect
considering that we're comparing a '020 to a '030 running at nearly twice
the clock speed?


>>Of course he was comparing it to relatively slow Mac II's like the cx.

You consider the cx to be relatively slow? Gee, maybe it's time for that
upgrade...

>>Would someone with a IIFX screamer post some results so I can show my
>>haughty amiga friend up?  If someone has a souped up mac that would be

Amiga owners do tend to be a little haughty, don't they (what other group
of computer owners would put a damn check sign in almost every .sig)? But
then again, they have their reasons...which you can learn about by reading
comp.sys.amiga, so I won't belobor them here...


--
Don DeVoe       "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders 
ddev@epsl.umd.edu  what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -TMBG