Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site soph.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!enmasse!enms2!soph!dave
From: dave@soph.UUCP (Dave Brownell)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: 68020 benchmarks?? (disbelieve Intel)
Message-ID: <155@soph.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-May-85 18:32:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: soph.155
Posted: Mon May 20 18:32:59 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 01:38:57 EDT
Reply-To: dave@soph.UUCP (Dave Brownell)
Organization: Enmasse Computer Corp., Acton, Mass.
Lines: 27

I agree with Dan -- I do NOT believe those Intel benchmarks.  Anyone who's
seen the 68000/8086 Benchmark Wars between Motorola and Intel has to be
skeptical about any 68020/80286 figures put out by Intel.  I was quite
surprised at an informal benchmark I came up with last week on 1 Kb core
copies on a set of machines, namely that the 286 processor came out tad
better than a 68010.  There was only a little additional code (Ethernet
protocol processing) going on between the copies.

My numbers, using the fastest block move instructions possible:
    Intel family processors:
	8088, 4.77 MHz	130 copies/sec
	8086, 8 MHz	260 copies/sec
	80286, 6 MHz	450 copies/sec (real mode)
    Motorola ones:
	68000, 12 MHz	340 copies/sec (SLOW block move loop)
	68010, 10 MHz	425 copies/sec

My impression is that the 68010 and 80286 are roughly the same overall.

Disclaimer:  this was NOT an overall benchmark, etc., so no flames please.
No wait states except on the 68000, so far as I know.  Yes, this gives
the 80286 an advantage since it then has the fastest memory system. (?)
-- 
	Dave Brownell
	EnMasse Computer Corporation
	enmasse!dave@Harvard.ARPA
	{genrad,harvard}!enmasse!dave