Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
From: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: Don't use bc (was: More issues of benchmarking)
Message-ID: <39919@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 6 Dec 90 19:22:57 GMT
References: <1990Dec3.191756.15280@cs.utk.edu> <39871@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Dec3.204027.16794@cs.utk.edu> <109872@convex.convex.com> <1990Dec6.000702.16354@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Lines: 15

In article <1990Dec6.000702.16354@watmath.waterloo.edu>, mhcoffin@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Michael Coffin) writes:
> It [bc benchmark]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.

SPECmark is actually 10 numbers, not one.  It might be interesting
to see which of the 10 spec numbers correlates most strongly with
the bc number, and what the coefficient of correlation is.  Anyone
have SPEC numbers to do the experiment with?

--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck