Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekcrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!terryl
From: terryl@tekcrl.UUCP ()
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang.c,net.micro,net.micro.pc,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Need 286 "C" benchmark
Message-ID: <146@tekcrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 14:35:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekcrl.146
Posted: Wed May 29 14:35:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 00:32:18 EDT
References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP> <583@intelca.UUCP> <433@oakhill.UUCP>, <588@intelca.UUCP>
Lines: 36
Xref: watmath net.arch:1280 net.lang.c:5323 net.micro:10584 net.micro.pc:4086 net.micro.68k:835

>> int a[50000];
>> 
>> main()
>> {
>>   int i;
>>   for (i=0; i<50000; i++) a[i+1] = a[i];
>> }
>> 
>> Dave Trissel    {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
>> Motorola Semiconductor Inc.  Austin, Texas
>> "I work with 'em and mine works"

>Hmmm, once again Dave has submitted a benchmark that requires more than 64K
>of data.  This continued harping on the issue seems to indicate to me that
>maybe Dave realizes that for programs that require less than 64K of data
>that a 12MHz 286 actually keeps pace with the 16.67 MHz 68020.  Of course,
>he might not be saying this at all, and far be it for ME to try to read
>between his lines of code.....I would like to see the 680{00,10,20} 
>performance numbers and system configurations for these benchmarks, though,
>just for internal curiousity.


     OK, here are times for a 68010 system we use here at Tek running 4.2,
with ONE wait state for the memory subsystem. This was on an unloaded system.
Do whatever you want with the times. The compiler was the Greenhills compiler
for the 68000.

1.2u 0.1s 0:01 99% 0+16k 0+0io 1pf+0w
1.2u 0.1s 0:01 98% 0+16k 0+1io 1pf+0w




					Terry Laskodi
					     of
					Tektronix