Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!yeti!davidsen
From: davidsen@yeti.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: DHRYSTONE
Message-ID: <19481@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 13 May 91 18:45:29 GMT
References: <305@altos86.Altos.COM>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 24


In article <305@altos86.Altos.COM>, rayb@altos86.Altos.COM ( Ray
Barbieri) writes:

|> 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. 

|> 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.

And everyone has pretty much standardised on C2.1 because 1.x gave
unrealistic results. Since it's free I would upgrade, since you will not
be comparing yourselves to the same benchmark most reputable vendors are
using.
--
Bill Davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com, uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
  GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
  Moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 386users mailing list
       "This is your PC. This is your PC on OS/2. Any questions?"