Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!barry@pico.math.ucla.edu
From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXTSTation benchmark
Message-ID: <742@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 15 Nov 90 19:05:21 GMT
Sender: news@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
Lines: 51

Some folks have pointed out that, to be fair, I should use gcc as
the compiler rather than cc, since next really uses gcc and this is smarter
than cc.

So, here's a quick comparison, compiling my little million multiply C
program with ``gcc -O'' in all cases (= ``cc -O'' on NeXTs)

----------------------------

Sun 3/80  (thanks to Charles Purcell)

  0.39 MFLOPS

NeXT Cube (68030)

   0.56 MFLOPS

SparcStation 1   (my machine, and also thanks to Fred White)

   3.0--3.3 MFLOPS    (vs. 2.3 MFLOPS using plain ``cc -O'')

NeXTStation

   3.3 MFLOPS

Also, we have a special guest appearance by the...RS/6000!
First, this editorial comment:
Ralph Seguin writes:

>The RS/6000s SCREAM.  I have been using them for quite some
>time now.  They give SPECmarks which kill every other machine at that price
>level.

okay, but...

IBM RS/6000 (scalar) (Thanks to Charles Purcell---I don't know if this was gcc, though)

  3.3 MFLOPS

---------------------------



So, for simple scalar floating point, the NeXTStation seems to be the
price/performance leader (and even the performance leader!)

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)