Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!utkcs2!de5 From: de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: More issues of benchmarking Message-ID: <1990Nov30.132116.13462@cs.utk.edu> Date: 30 Nov 90 13:21:16 GMT References: <19040001@orac.HP.COM> <4344@awdprime.UUCP> <9516@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <513@mephisto.edu> <515@mephisto.edu> Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: Dave Sill Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lines: 33 In article zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: > >Wasting more bandwidth on a trivial benchmark. > > echo 2^5000/2^5000 | /bin/time bc I can't resist. Summarizing the results posted so far, and adding a few of my own: IBM RS/6000 320 4.4 de5 DECstation 5000/200 6.0 de5 DECsystem 5810 6.2 de5 Cray XMP (Unicos) 8.6 de5 SPARCstation 1+ 12.2 de5 DECstation 2100 12.8 de5 DECstation 2100 13.4 juan SPARCstation SLC 15.4 meissner SPARCstation 1 16.0 juan SPARCstation SLC 44.5 zeeff Sun 3/50 45.9 zeeff MicroVAX ? 75.7 de5 All of mine were done on lightly to not at all loaded systems, and were the best of 3-4 consecutive runs. The first run, without exception, took significantly longer than any subsequent runs. Disappointing Cray result, but the IBM was impressive. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support