Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!gestetner!chris From: chris@gestetner.oz (Chris Mendes) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: i960CA benchmark results Summary: I have benchmarked the i960 and found it to be very powerful in most cases Keywords: i960CA, benchmarks Message-ID: <591@gestetner.oz> Date: 23 Nov 90 03:09:57 GMT References: <13912@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> Organization: Gestetner Lasers, Sydney Australia. Lines: 69 In article <13912@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, brandis@inf.ethz.ch (Marc Brandis) writes: > Does anybody have some benchmark results for the i960CA, especially as > compared to other processors? I would be very interested in the integer > SPECmarks (as the CA does not have an FPU), the Dhrystone rating, > Hennessy-Benchmark results or similar stuff. > > Moreover, does anybody know how well the i960CA puts its multiple > execution units into use? Is the Intel rating of 66 MIPS at 33 MHz > realistic for non-toy programs? > > Thanks for any results or pointers! > > > (* I speak only for myself. > Marc-Michael Brandis, Institut fuer Computersysteme, CH-8092 Zurich > email: brandis@inf.ethz.ch brandis@iis.ethz.ch > *) This article is in response to a request put forward in Article 386 for i960 Benchmarks: Benchmark results for the EVCA i960 Eval. Board: =============================================== 1. Drystone. i960CA (code and data in 0 wait state sram) 28000 drystones/sec i960CA (code in DRAM , data in SRAM) 15150 " SUN3/60 4360 " SUN 3/50 3300 " 2 Mandelbrot. This showed that the i960CA with software floating point routines was between 2 and 3 times faster than a sun3/60 with a floating point coprocessor. Not that startling. 3. Bitmap. A comparison was made between our proprietary bitmap handler software on a SUN 3/60 and the i960CA. It was found that the 960 was 8-10 times faster than the SUN. (This test basically involves a number of basic trapezoid, elipse and line drawing functions using 'C' , the Bresenham algorithm was the basis for the drawing routines). (NB: This is probably the most relevant benchmark for our company. ) Hope this sheds some light for you as to benchmarks. All tests were compiled with the GCC960 compiler at maximum optimisation. Obviously, some software will respond better to rescheduling than others so the parallel execution of code depends very much on the application. Some code should run as intel predict however this is not, in general, a sustained throughput level. The floating point library is not as fast as we had hoped nor is it squeaky clean. The software was overhauled by US Software after it failed to pass one of our tests ( Paranoia ) and fixes were incorporated in version 1.2 of the Intel/GNU tools release although there are still a few flaws. Clearly, the chip flies and we beilieve that we have made the right decision as far as our commitment to it goes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher M. Mendes chris@gestetner.oz Ph: +61-2-9750546 Fx: +61-2-9750448 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------