Xref: utzoo comp.sys.m88k:437 comp.arch:18893 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!winchester!mash From: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k,comp.arch Subject: Re: Fastest 88k Message-ID: <42593@mips.mips.COM> Date: 1 Nov 90 01:43:18 GMT References: <1172@iceman.jcu.oz> <42586@mips.mips.COM> Sender: news@mips.COM Reply-To: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Followup-To: comp.sys.m88k Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 46 In article tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: >OK, I have been reading these notes on SPEC numbers for the 88k, and my >fingers started twitching out of control with the desire to publish our >SPECtacular numbers, so here they are: In my opinion, this is a GOOD posting: it actually has some useful data, as opposed to random rumor-mongering. >Machine: 25MZ Harris Night Hawk - 1 processor - 128K cache (64I/64D) >Compilers: Harris Common Code Generator (CCG) C and Fortran >SPEC benchmark run times (all times are in seconds): .... >It is also worth noting that many of the above times are better than the >best numbers for 25MHZ MIPS workstations (most of the double precision >intensive benchmarks do much better on MIPS - this should not suprise >anyone, it certainly does not suprise me). Of these times: on 4/10 it beats a Magnum, and loses on 6 (64KB cache). on 3/10 it beats a DS5000/200, and loses on 7 (128KB cache) >Disclaimer: >No these are not the compilers we are shipping in our current release, they >are our inhouse development versions which will eventually filter out into >future releases. We certainly hope that the compilers we eventually release >will do even better. Good disclaimer. Be warned (from past experience!) sometimes people put in optimizations that break things when lots of programs are compiled, and the optimizations have to be pulled back to meet a release schedule. However, this is a fair, and properly-disclaimered posting, and clearly shows the best numbers I've seen for an 88K. Now, just out of curiosity: a) What are the numbers you get using the current production compilers? b) About how far apart (in time) are those two versions? c) Do you feel that tuneups done to improve SPEC numbers carry over into improvements on other programs ... or not? Any comments on those that you'd be willing to make would be good... especially item c) would be interesting to a lot of people. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: UUCP: mash@mips.com OR {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash DDD: 408-524-7015, 524-8253 or (main number) 408-720-1700 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086