Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: Don't use bc (was: More issues of benchmarking)
Message-ID: <5T6_!X*@b-tech.uucp>
Date: 7 Dec 90 15:15:31 GMT
References: <1990Dec3.204027.16794@cs.utk.edu> <109872@convex.convex.com> <1990Dec6.000702.16354@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Branch Technology
Lines: 15

>>I suggest that the bc benchmark is worse than worthless for several reasons.
>>[ ... ]
>
>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.

I agree.  Nobody claims it's a great benchmark, but I like to see more 
proof (possibly in the form of comparisons to SPEC) instead of so much 
speculation.  

I'm suprised at how well it agreed with the rankings I expected.
-- 
Jon Zeeff (NIC handle JZ)	 zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us