Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jb10320
From: jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: End this nonsense comparison
Message-ID: <1991Jan5.014646.26135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 5 Jan 91 01:46:46 GMT
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 65

In what will almost certainly be a futile attempt to end the counter-productive
discussions downplaying $1.00 6502s to $1,000 RISC chips, I submit the
following information.

Two machines, pitted against each other.

Apple IIgs, Transwarp (7MHz)
386 Clone, 33MHz

The test- the Dhrystone, a program designed to test the ability of a machine
to execute basic tasks (branches, comparisons, math).

The results-
IIgs	650 Dhrystones
386     10000 Dhrystones

Now, this looks pretty bad, doesn't it? I mean, one can get a 386 machine
for a little over twice the cost of a GS system, and look at the performance
difference!

But, remember one thing- the 386 has hardware multiply and divide- two
of the most often executed instructions in the Dhrystone.  This makes
2 * 2 on the 386 about 20-30 (roughly) times faster than the equivalent
operation on a 65816 (measured in clock cycles).  But the 386 only pulls
a Dhrystone 13 times faster than the GS- when it should be getting upwards
of 100 times that! (20 times faster math, 5 times faster clock).
I'm sticking with my '816, thank you very much. For it's price and simplicity,
it's a damned good chip. Give me a 25MHz '816 any day over a 33 MHz 386-
sure, the '386 will still be faster at the basics, but then again,
the rest of the PC/AT hardware design is VERY limiting for such a processor.
Which is one reason why Windows is so bloody slow. A '386 inside of a PC
box is, simply put, unimpressive. (The Unix box I'm using right now uses
6 '386s, and they crank! But they're still Intel-designed chips- ewewewew)

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.  With good enough macro libraries,
there's almost no reason NOT to program in assembly. Sure you have to plan
a little better (because you can be totally free-form), but you can also
optimize the hell out of it.

Now- C's not all bad.  In fact, I'm releasing my TelCom program to show that
REAL, USABLE applications can be written in C on the GS.  GScii is another
example of a program written in a HLL that performs well- and it will even
better once a few choice routines are rewritten in assembly.

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.  AutoCad for the IBM will soon stop supporting '286s
entirely- becuase the program is too 'complex' to run at good speed.
In actuality, the programmers are too lazy to write assembly code to speed
up critical sections.

Well, I've ragged in a national forum long enough.

My point? Just that you get what you pay for, and considering everything,
the GS is not that bad a deal.


--
Jawaid Bazyar               | Being is Mathematics 
Senior/Computer Engineering | Love is Chemistry
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu    | Sex is Physics
   Apple II Forever!        | Babies are engineering