Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!
 zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!chow
From: chow@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Christopher Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Surely A Iifx Blo
Message-ID: <1990Oct20.142925.18856@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 90 14:29:25 GMT
References: <7878.271B9F30@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Lines: 55

In article <7878.271B9F30@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sonny Shrivastava) writes:
 .Here are my results on a Mac IIci, System 6.0.5, Speedometer 2.5 (disregard 
 .results in previous message):

As long as people are posting benchmark result, here is what I get for 
my Mac II with Dove 030 Marathon board installed. [The Marathon 030 is
a board consisting of a 68030 at 32 Mhz w/o any additional cache.
MacWorld (August 1980) found it to be approximately same in speed as
a IIci without a cache board.]
                             Mac IIci       II w/ Mara.      II w/Mara & FPU
 .        KWhetstones/sec.:  882.353         75.949           659.341
 .        Dhrystones/sec.:   5791.506      4966.887          4893.964
 .        Sieve (Secs, 100 times):  3.750     3.050             3.067
 .        Savage Cum. Error: 7.98815e-010  2.29745e-011     7.99815e-10
 .        Savage Time:       7.317 sec.      32.4               9.650
 .        Savage Iterations: 25000         5000             25000
 .        
 .        CPU Test:  6.71			6.38		6.38
 .        Math:      149.71			9.79	      134.36
 .        Disk:      3.15			2.96		2.96
 .        Performance:  7.45 (no FPU)		6.38            n/a


 I note in passing that the times posted for the Mac IIci for floating 
 point seem very strange.  That math benchmark at 149.71 would be
 indicative of a testing calling the 68882 coprocessor directly.  Note
 for example, the 149.71 is completely off the wall in comparison to
 the data given in the "systems comparison" window.  Furthermore, the
 Savage cum. error figures are indicative of the errors which the
 Motorola chips would generate (SANE exceeds IEEE floating point specs
 for accuracy at a great expense for speed.)

 Also, when citing Mac IIci numbers you should explicitly state whether
 you have a cache, and if so, something about the cache (i.e, name,
 size, and type (direct, n-way interleave (specify n)).

 BTW, could someone with a Mac IIci and a cache do some benchmarks and
 show us what difference a cache makes?

 Good day. 



Christopher Chow
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Internet:  chow@theory.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.248.35 or 128.84.253.35)    |
| Usenet:    ...{uw-beaver|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow          |
| US Mail:   1 Notre Dame Dr - Room 335, Albany, NY 12208                   |
| Phone:     1-518-426-0687                                                 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
-- 
Christopher Chow
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Internet:  chow@theory.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.248.35 or 128.84.253.35)    |
| Usenet:    ...{uw-beaver|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow          |