Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/13/84; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amd!intelca!kds
From: kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang.c,net.micro,net.micro.pc,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Need 286 "C" benchmark
Message-ID: <588@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-May-85 18:36:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.588
Posted: Sat May 25 18:36:32 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 26-May-85 00:16:09 EDT
References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP> <583@intelca.UUCP> <433@oakhill.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 27
Xref: utcs net.arch:1232 net.lang.c:5196 net.micro:10172 net.micro.pc:3995 net.micro.68k:797

> 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.
-- 
It looks so easy, but looks sometimes deceive...

Ken Shoemaker, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,omovax}!intelca!kds
	
---the above views are personal.  They may not represent those of Intel.