Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 Fluke 1/4/84; site fluke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!kurt From: kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Re: 80286 benchmarks + mild flame Message-ID: <1011@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Apr-84 12:49:21 EDT Article-I.D.: vax2.1011 Posted: Mon Apr 30 12:49:21 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 03:18:17 EDT References: <882@omsvax.UUCP> Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Everett, WA Lines: 58 I have some of the offending Intel Benchmark Report(s). They are: 1 "Benchmark: iAPX 88 versus Zilog Z80", 1980 AFN 01664A 2 "Benchmark: iAPX 88 versus MC6809", 1980 AFN 01532A 3 "iAPX 86 System Benchmark Report", Feb 1982, Order #210352-001 4 "iAPX 186,286 Benchmark Report", Oct 1982, Order #210826 These benchmarks contain some interesting information: 1 and 2. Even on benchmarks optimized for the iAPX 88, the MC6809 is shown as about 50% of a iAPX 88 (8088). I think this is a pretty good showing for an 8-bit processor. The 88 is only about 3 times as powerful as the lowly Z80 according to these benchmarks. Pretty amazing. Of course, the 88 is probably much easier to program in assembly language than the Z80. 3. This benchmark compared an Intellec running at 5Mhz against a Exormacs running at 8 Mhz, with the results normalized for 8 Mhz operation. Note one important bias in this test was that the Intellec had an 8087 numeric coprocessor, while fp in the 68000 was interpreted. This alone explains the good showing of the 8086 against the 68000. Add to this the fact that the Motorola Pascal used is known not to be a particularly efficient implementation, even for the 68000, and you see how the results were obtained. This report makes other comparisons showing the iAPX 86 off against minicomputers. There is less data about how the tests were performed, and therefore less discernable bias. 4. The results of these benchmarks are difficult for me to interpret because they rely on intricate configurations of the hardware. I have heard rumors that these hardware configurations may not have been completely fair, especially in the way the MMU was connected to the 68000, and it also appears that some of the results were obtained by reference to timing charts, rather than on actual hardware. I will not analyze these results, except to mention that the 186/286 of course beat the 68000 again. These benchmarks were mostly on computationally intensive problems like matrix multiply and FFTs and I did not find any mention of whether a floating point accelerator was used for either processor. What conclusions can be drawn from these benchmarks? The 8087 is a vital piece of any iAPX-x86 based system. The 8088 is not that great a leap beyond 8-bit processors. An x86+8087 architecture will probably outperform the 68000 alone in numerical applications. Microcomputers are achieving performance equivalent to minicomputers. What conclusions cannot be drawn from these benchmarks? That is for you to decide. Order these benchmarks and make your own analysis. Oh, by the way, if you want to see sparks, ask the Motorola rep about their response to the Intel benchmarks. Just don't stand too close to him when you do. Kurt (why doesn't anybody benchmark against the NSC16000 ?) Guntheroth Not affiliated with Intel, Motorola, NSC, or any other processor manufacturer. Always my own opinion and doesn't reflect opinions of John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. -- Kurt Guntheroth John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. {uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurt