Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!altos!altos86!rayb
From: rayb@altos86.Altos.COM ( Ray Barbieri)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: DHRYSTONE
Message-ID: <305@altos86.Altos.COM>
Date: 9 May 91 16:28:12 GMT
Organization: Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 30

We're running the 12/01/84 "C/1" version of the dhrystone
benchmark and I'm investigating both Green Hills and Metware to see who
is fastest.  Is "C/1" equivlent to what everyone calls dhrystone 2.1?

I know you purists out there snub your nose at this benchmark and I'd agree
in principal.  However, our company has decided that we need to show
how much "better" than everone else we are by publishing benchmark
results.  I know that dhrystones on a standard X86 AT is not very
interesting in that the system architecture is pretty old and the processors
are just faster versions of another old architecture (no fancy parallel
processing or the like).  However, there is a tremendous market out
there of people who's basic understanding of a computer is
epitomized in the IBM PC/AT.  When they want to upgrade, what do they
use to tell them who's machine is "better" than who's?  It's pretty
impractical to ask them to run their company's accounting package on
each of 100 or more vendors to see who's is the best performer. 

Today, the majority of these people use the dhrystone benchmark program
along with others to determine what the new machine is capable.  I
agree that this is not optimal, but remember that the PC world is
defined by standards.  Until there is a standard, no one will invest
(or believe) in it.  Benchmarks also fall prey to this.

It's a different sort of challenge to find a benchmark to satisfy the
PC user.  Unfortunately, once a standard is adopted, it hangs around
forever it seems because standards tend to carry a tremedous amount of
inertia.

Ray Barbieri
rayb@altos.com