Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ria!csd.uwo.ca!crispin
From: crispin@csd.uwo.ca (Crispin Cowan)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: More issues of benchmarking
Message-ID: <1512@ria.ccs.uwo.ca>
Date: 22 Nov 90 17:54:31 GMT
References: <7601@eos.arc.nasa.gov> <19040001@orac.HP.COM>
Sender: news@ria.ccs.uwo.ca
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Lines: 39

In article <19040001@orac.HP.COM> wunder@orac.HP.COM (Walter Underwood) writes:
[shortest benchmark]
>   echo 2^5000/2^5000 | /bin/time bc
>
>which prints "1".
>On a somewhat busy 50 MHz 60030 machine (HP9000/375, HP-UX 7.0):
>
>$ echo 2^5000/2^5000 | /bin/time bc
>1
>
>real       14.4
>user        9.4
>sys         0.1


While this is a short benchmark, and is much better than the naive one
posted to com.arch a while ago (which was massively dominated by divide
instructions), it also isn't very indicitive.

Some examples of user CPU time on various machines:
machine		bc as above	latex my thesis		build gcc
uVAX 3200	20.5		300			1500
Sequent S27	26.7		200			NA
Sun 3/50	42.9		NA			1800
Sun 3/110	39.3		NA			1400
Sun 3/60	29.8		NA			1100

The numbers track across the Sun 3's, as expected (same CPU, same code).
However, it does kinda over-estimate the VAX, both with respect to the
Sequent (386, 16 MHz), and the Suns.  Anyone know what the VAX is doing
to get superior performance on bc, and inferior on these other
applications?

Crispin
-----
Crispin Cowan, CS grad student, University of Western Ontario
Work:  MC28-C, x3342 crispin@csd.uwo.ca
890 Elias St., London, Ontario, N5W 3P2,  432-7823
	---> Support the GST:  Canada's first fair tax <---