Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rna.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!rna!dan
From: dan@rna.UUCP (Dan Ts'o)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro
Subject: Re: 68020 benchmarks??
Message-ID: <398@rna.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 23:14:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: rna.398
Posted: Wed May 15 23:14:05 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 17-May-85 04:25:21 EDT
References: <>
Reply-To: dan@rna.UUCP ( Ts'o)
Organization: Rockefeller Neurobiology, NYC
Lines: 64
Xref: linus net.micro.68k:711 net.micro:9112
Summary: 

In article <> randy@petfe.UUCP (Randy Banton) writes:
>I have a benchmark paper from the Intel literature group which
>claims a 6Mhz 80286 is 1.38 a 10Mhz 68010. The 286 machines
>were the Intel 286/310 and IBM PC/AT.  The 68010 machines were
>a Sun 2/120 and a Masscomp workstation.

	Well I haven't had a chance to run benchmarks on a real 68020
system, but I have run benchmarks on an Intel 286/380, an IBM PC/AT and
a Masscomp and a Callan. Except the for the PC/AT the results were posted
in my previous postings along with a dozen other machines all relative to
a 4.2BSD VAX 780.  If you would like to see those results, please let me know.
	Here are just the results for the three machines (VAX 780 == 1.0), all
running UNIX/XENIX.

		Intel 286	PC/AT		Masscomp	Callan

LOOP		.16		.19		.38		.40

CC LOOP		.17		.20		.38		.13

SIEVE		.56		.66		.57		.59

CC SIEVE	.19		.22		.4		.15

FLOAT		.0029		.0027		.030 (.41)	.031

GETPID		.55		.64		.76		.89

GREP		.39		.28		.4		.51

COPY		.10		.14		.25		.15

NROFF		.27		na		.4		.29

SORT		.41		.38		.5		.47

mean
		.28 (.30)	.30 (.34)	.41 (.45)	.36
stddev
		.19		.22		.19		.26


	For the 286 and the PC/AT, no floating point chip/support was available.
The floating point emulation was abysmal - the mean number in parenthesis do not
include the FLOAT benchmark for these machines. The FLOAT benchmark number for
the Masscomp in parenthesis is with their floating point processor, which seems
to be a considerable help. Note that in comparing the Masscomp to the Callan
one should consider that the Masscomp has a cache and a better disk.
	These results do not substantial Intel's claims in comparing their
80286 to the 68000 or 68010 (unless you plan on running just SIEVEs). I would
therefore doubt Intel's claims in comparing the 80286 to the 68020. The 6Mhz
80286 appears to be slightly less than a 68010 at 10Mhz. I don't see how a
10Mhz 80286 could be 2.85 times a 10Mhz 68010. Nevertheless the PC/AT proves
to be quite a good price/performer.


					Cheers,
					Dan Ts'o
					Dept. Neurobiology
					Rockefeller Univ.
					1230 York Ave.
					NY, NY 10021
					212-570-7671
					...cmcl2!rna!dan