Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucrmath!rhyde From: rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: End this nonsense comparison Message-ID: <10904@ucrmath.ucr.edu> Date: 5 Jan 91 06:45:33 GMT References: <1991Jan5.014646.26135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: University of California, Riverside Lines: 97 >> Apple II GS 7Mhz 650 Dhrystones >> 386 33Mhz 10000 Dhrystones Did you write all this in "C"? Even I would expect a 7Mhz '816 to run a little faster than ~1/18th the speed of a 33 Mhz 386. If this is in "C", I'm sure the STRCMP and STRCPY functions were carefully crafted in assembly to optimize Dhrystone ratings, vs. ORCA/C where those routines were probably written in "C". If this is a legitimate measurement, I would suspect that ORCA/C is even worse than I thought it was or your code is blowing the cache on your transwarp and the '816 is running slower than 7 Mhz as a result. BTW, over in comp.sys.nsc.32k there's someone who used to work for National Semi who had a few comments about the Dhrystone Benchmark. Carefully crafting routines like STRCMP, STRCPY, and other in assembly he was able to get the chip to exceed 30,000 Dhrystones. Considering that it produces about 8,000 Dhyrstones @ 25 Mhz using GCC this is a rather impressive achivement (he did not, however, rewrite the entire program in assembly). I would like to see some reasonable benchmarks around here comparing a 1Mhz 6502 against a 4.77 Mhz 8088. Alas, I wouldn't even know if I could locate a 4.77 Mhz machine myself these days. Maybe there is one hidden around at UCR I could find. Only some real, substantial benchmarks will shut everyone up on these subject (or, at least, it will refocus the argument on the quality of the benchmark!). >> 2*2 on the 386 about 20-30 times faster... Not if you use ASL vs. SHL! Perhaps you should pick a better pair of numbers to multiply. I sure hope, if you're actually multiplying by a power of two, that your "C" compilers pick up on this and (on the 816) convert it to the appropriate shift instructions! >> Give me a 25Mhz '816 over a 33 Mhz '386 any day. Assuming zero wait states, I'd go along with this. Question is, will we ever really see such a beast? Better yet, give me a 65c832 or even a 65032 at 20-25Mhz. Alas, by the time such a chip exists, Intel will probably have given us 100 Mhz 586 or 686 chips. Of course, the big problem with all of these fast chips is "where are we going to get the high speed memory to go along with them?" >>>>>>> Now we come to assembly vs. C. Someone who chooses to program in C because "it's easier to program in C" is full of it. Assembly language is EASY to program in, especially on machines line the '816 that were (sort of) designed to be programmed in assembly. <<<<<<< >> full of it.. I couldn't agree more. Our wonderful University system and compiler vendors have grossly overstated the advantages of HLLs and "C" in particular. >> designed to be programmed in assembly. Yes and no. Certainly the '816 has a poor architecture for supporing HLLs and the original intent of the chip was for video games and controller applications. I don't think the designer (Bill Mensch), however, went out of his way to make it easy to write assembly code for the '816. Those M & X bits are a big source of trouble in complex programs. >>>>> And here we come to the heart of the matter- on the Apple II, people are still willing to write in assembly. In the rest of the world, programmers have become lazy. <<<<< True. Alas, Apple II people who are willing to writing in assembly are a dying breed. Long gone are the days that someone would learn assembly so they could get rich writing a video game for an Apple II. It's much easier to write in C on a PC, and the market is about 100 times larger, so guess what? They won't bother. It would be nice if there was a really good C for the GS that was reasonably compatible with PC C compilers so we could entice some of those people to port their stuff to the GS. >>>>>> My point? Just that you get what you pay for, and considering everything, the GS is not that bad a deal. <<<<<< If you're willing to accept the "limitations" of the GS, it is a good deal. Alas, most people don't need the need things the GS has to offer (good sound, built in networking, toolkit in ROM, etc.) They need a specific solution to a problem. Alas, except in the educational market, low end word processing and spreadsheet, and other small niches, the GS doesn't solve too many people's problems cost effectively. I would hate to have the GS as my only machine. I would also hate not to have a GS at all. >>>>> Well, I've ragged in a national forum long enough. <<<<< Hey, that's why I'm paying outrageous amounts of income taxes. Rag all you want, I'll pay more :-). *** Randy Hyde