Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:7058 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:13405
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Confused about mips, SI rating, and my computer!
Message-ID: <3562@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 30 Mar 91 20:33:08 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.045507.3905@nmt.edu>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 24

In article <1991Mar28.045507.3905@nmt.edu> wasnsr@nmt.edu (T.O.R.S.O.) writes:

| 	Benchmark Perf 	   Ibm pc    Ibm AT  Compaq	Actual
| 	relative to ->	    4.7Mhz   8Mhz     386       MIPS
| 	------------------------------------------------------
| 	General Instruc	    8.40     2.44     1.23   :   1.39

| 	Now, following the numbers, I am assuming that the lower the 
| number the better.  If this is so, am I wrong in assuming that a 
| 386 20MHz should beat an Ibm AT (8MHz) in every category.

If you read the headers, the number is the ration of *your* system to
the computer named. So it 8.40 times faster then the PC, 1.23 times
faster then the Compaq original 386. Since that was a 386-16 I'm not
surprised. A 386 is not N times faster in every category, so the
performance is check in a number of areas.

The original Compaq didn't have cache, either, my GV-386 would beat it
by 19% on some benchmarks just beacuse of this.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me