Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!percy!nerd
From: nerd@percy.rain.com (Michael Galassi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Mathematica Benchmarks (NeXT vs. DEC and Mac)
Message-ID: <1991Jan8.040831.28810@percy.rain.com>
Date: 8 Jan 91 04:08:31 GMT
Organization: Percy's UNIX, Portland, OR.
Lines: 25

>>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
...
>As a benchmark, Mathematica is wholly bogus.  It has been reorganized
>(somewhat ineptly, it appears) to run with the Mac's segmented code
>resource scheme, with PharLap on dos, etc.  The compilers used are
>unstated in its documentation, and the source is not available for
>recompilation.  Thus it cannot be used to benchmark raw processor/memory
>speed or processor/memory/compiler speed.  What's left?

Two things:
Mathematica is a GREAT benchmark if it is the principal intended application
for a machine.

I did a litle soapbox act a few days ago about how vile MIPS is as a figure
of merit unless two processors of the same architectural family are being
compared.  Doug DeJulio & Erik Buck both pointed out to me that most
people actualy mean VAX MIPS equivalents (is this what DEC calls a VUP?)
when they say MIPS.  While I don't like VAX MIPS as a way of comparing
systems I was out of line in my objection.

-- 
Michael Galassi				| nerd@percy.rain.com
MS-DOS:  The ultimate PC virus.		| ...!tektronix!percy!nerd