Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!jpp From: jpp@specialix.co.uk (John Pettitt) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: More issues of benchmarking Message-ID: <1990Dec10.104249.2767@specialix.co.uk> Date: 10 Dec 90 10:42:49 GMT References: <1990Nov30.132116.13462@cs.utk.edu> <90335.174813NEUMANN@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> <1990Dec6.103118.3544@erbe.se> Organization: Specialix International, London Lines: 34 In article <90335.174813NEUMANN@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> NEUMANN@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (Gustaf Neumann) writes: :Here is the updated bc hit-pararde (user time): : :IBM RS/6000 720 3.5 tif :IBM RS/6000 320 4.4 de5 :DECstation 5000/200 6.0 de5 :DECstation 5000/200 (U 4.0) 6.0 neumann :DECsystem 5810 6.2 de5 ALR 486/25(128K cache) SCO UNIX 6.2 :Sparcstation 2GX 7.0 dwf :Sun 4/470 (sos 4.1) 8.3 casper :Cray XMP (Unicos) 8.6 de5 ALR 386/33 SCO UNIX 11.1 It used to be (when all machines were CISC) that you could walk up to a system and run your favorite `bc' benchmark (mine was 512^512) and get a result that at least put you in the right order of magnitude for the machine performance. As you can see from my 486 result above this does seem to hold true when you start to put RISC and Vector machines into the mix. Oh well, time to find a new `quick test' -- John Pettitt, Specialix International, Email: jpp@specialix.com Tel +44 (0) 9323 54254 Fax +44 (0) 9323 52781 Disclaimer: Me, say that ? Never, it's a forged posting !