Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!emory!utkcs2!de5 From: de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: expanded bc results Message-ID: <1990Dec14.124836.7486@cs.utk.edu> Date: 14 Dec 90 12:48:36 GMT References: <1990Dec11.145500.6650@cs.utk.edu> <1024@maestro.queensu.CA> Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: Dave Sill Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lines: 29 In article <1024@maestro.queensu.CA>, levisonm@qucis.queensu.CA (Mark Levison) writes: > >followup to one of Dave's comments: > Dave if benchmarks are not used for comparison what are the used for? I don't remember saying that. The bc results disclaimer says: >These results should not be used to specify minimum >performance requirements in a procurement specification. This should go without saying, but apparently one can't be too careful. >This benchmark is best used as a diagnostic tool, e.g., compare >successive runs on on machine or compare similar machines. Seems to allow for comparison... >It can also be used to determine the rough capabilities of an unknown >system when more thorough and accurate testing isn't feasible. Of course, one should take the results with a grain of salt. The subsecond timing for the '386 running Coherent should really drive that point home. Use your common sense. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) It will be a great day when our schools have Martin Marietta Energy Systems all the money they need and the Air Force Workstation Support has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.