Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watserv1!ria!csd.uwo.ca!crispin
From: crispin@csd.uwo.ca (Crispin Cowan)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: nbc - A New!, Improved! bc benchmark
Message-ID: <1941@ria.ccs.uwo.ca>
Date: 18 Dec 90 15:54:17 GMT
References: <115440001@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com>
Sender: news@ria.ccs.uwo.ca
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Lines: 33

In article <115440001@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com> spuhler@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Tom Spuhler) writes:
>      echo '2^9999/3^6308' |/bin/time bc
Ok, here we go again.

uVAX 3200, BSD Tahoe	       75.9 real        71.5 user         0.5 sys
Sequent S27, Dynix	       94.1 real        93.6 user         0.1 sys
Sequent S27, PTX (POSIX Beta)  88.0 real        87.6 user         0.0 sys
Sun 3/60, 8 MB, SUN OS 4.0.3   104.8 real       104.0 user        0.2 sys
(All machines reported a result of 2)

This benchmark is still predicting the uVAX to be the fastest of the
above three computers.

However, I KNOW the Sequent is faster (even as a single processor)
because it does real loads, like latex, 50% faster on CPU time, and 100%
faster on real time.

Furthermore, I KNOW that the Sun 3/60 is about 40% faster (CPU time and
real time) than the uVAX for building gcc.

Therefore, this bc is just as valid for predicting bc performance as the
last one, but is just as USELESS for predicting anything else.

These bc tests are a great, indirect measure of the clock frequency
being fed to a processor, if you use the same software and the same
processor, but they're VERY non-predictive for anything useful.

Crispin
-----
Crispin Cowan, CS grad student, University of Western Ontario
Work:  MC28-C, x3342 crispin@csd.uwo.ca
890 Elias St., London, Ontario, N5W 3P2,  432-7823
	---> Support the GST:  Canada's first fair tax <---