Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!watmsg!mhcoffin
From: mhcoffin@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Michael Coffin)
Subject: Re: Don't use bc (was: More issues of benchmarking)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 00:07:02 GMT
Message-ID: <1990Dec6.000702.16354@watmath.waterloo.edu>
References: <1990Dec3.191756.15280@cs.utk.edu> <39871@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Dec3.204027.16794@cs.utk.edu> <109872@convex.convex.com>
Sender: daemon@watmath.waterloo.edu (0000-Admin(0000))
Lines: 14

In article <109872@convex.convex.com> patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty) writes:
>I suggest that the bc benchmark is worse than worthless for several reasons.
>[ ... ]
>For workstations, the SPECmark benchmarks provide programs which are
>sufficiently complex as to avoid the trivial trick optimizations.
>[...]

It is only worse than worthless if it doesn't correlate well with real
performance.  Does anyone have SPECmark numbers for these machines?
It would be interesting to run correlations between SPECmark and
BCmark.  I'll be the correlation is high.

-mike



Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com