Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!linac!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!fwi.uva.nl!casper From: casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: More issues of benchmarking Message-ID: <1496@carol.fwi.uva.nl> Date: 30 Nov 90 08:45:06 GMT References: <19040001@orac.HP.COM> <4344@awdprime.UUCP> <9516@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Sender: news@fwi.uva.nl Lines: 41 meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) writes: >In article zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: >| >Wasting more bandwidth on a trivial benchmark. >| >Running my Sparcstation SLC on >| > echo 2^5000/2^5000 | /bin/time bc >| >yielded >| > 44.5 real 43.4 user 0.1 sys >| >| That's about (45.9) what it yields on a 3/50. I suspect that this >| isn't a very good benchmark :-). >On a DECstation 2100, you get: > 13.4 real 12.6 user 0.2 sys >I suspect the reason Sparcstation's get such lousy time compared other >equivalent systems, is the fact that the hardware does not do integer >multiply and divide, and it makes a Sun3 competitive in those cases. >Checking the 4.3-tahoe sources, shows that there is no floating point >code in bc, and everything is done via integers. Funny, when someone posts wrong results of a benchmark, someone else finds a plausible explanation. My numbers are (all systems running SunOS 4.1): SS 1+ 12.6 real 12.0 user 0.1 sys SLC 15.4 real 15.1 user 0.1 sys (!) Sun 4/370 12.3 real 11.2 user 0.3 sys Sun 4/470 9.1 real 8.3 user 0.0 sys Sun 3/60 31.0 real 29.9 user 0.4 sys Sun 3/80 38.3 real 28.6 user 0.6 sys Casper -- NOTE: Some machine instructions | Casper H.S. Dik must be executed on the CPU. | casper@fwi.uva.nl (a manual page on the Gould PowerNode) | NIC: !cd151