Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!netnews.whoi.edu!news From: ulrich@jargon.whoi.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Mathematica Benchmarks (NeXT vs. DEC and Mac) Message-ID: <1991Jan5.011801.5576@netnews.whoi.edu> Date: 5 Jan 91 01:18:01 GMT References: <1991Jan3.214940.1@linus.claremont.edu> Sender: news@netnews.whoi.edu Organization: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Lines: 40 In article <1991Jan3.214940.1@linus.claremont.edu> jack@linus.claremont.edu writes: >Hi, > >I just ran some interesting Mathematica benchmarks on a NeXTstation, a >Mac IIci (with Math coprocessor), and a DECStation model 3100. The >results are a little surprising. The Mathematica benchmarks are a >suite of 41 different tests from a number of different sources. The >test took a total of anywhere from about 2.5 minutes for the NeXT to >22.5 minutes for the Mac IIci. > >NeXTStation vs. Mac IIci with coprocessor > >Slope of Best Fit of time for each test 9.51 > (NeXT as x, Mac as y) >Correlation Coefficent 0.97 > >Mean of ratio's of each test 8.94 >Standard Deviation of ratio's 3.52 > >The Mac IIci was surprisingly slow. A 68030 NeXT (same CPU as the >IIci ) is only roughly 3 times slower that the NeXTstation. I wonder >if the performance difference might have to compiler optimization or >perhaps hardware (caching?)? > >Jack Stewart Jack@Hmcvax (Bitnet) >User Support Coordinator, jack@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Internet) >Harvey Mudd College, jack@fozzie.claremont.edu (NeXT-Mail) >Claremont, Ca. 91711 714-621-8006 > I ran some of the benchmarks on my Mac IIci with a Daystar Cache Card installed, and put the results on fenris.claremont.edu in pub/submission for Jack to statistically analyze....I don't have time to run the numbers myself but it looks like the IIci is as much as twice as fast with the cache card ($289 well spent, it seems). Nathan Ulrich Deep Submergence Laboratory Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ulrich@jargon.whoi.edu