Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site moncol.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!moncol!john
From: john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Z-100 blows away IBM-AT
Message-ID: <327@moncol.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 10:26:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: moncol.327
Posted: Tue May 28 10:26:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 29-May-85 03:27:30 EDT
References: <463@bgsuvax.UUCP>
Organization: Monmouth College, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
Lines: 80

>From: ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (ritzenth)
>Organization: Bowling Green State University, OH
>Message-ID: <463@bgsuvax.UUCP>
>
>After this short review, I've got to put my 2 cents worth in . . .
>
>GUBBINS@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA (Gern) wrote:
>
>>Using a standard BASIC benchmark, the Z-100 (8/16-bit 8088) blows
>>away an IBM-AT (16-bit 80286 at 6 MHz).
>>
>>the progam:
>>
>>5 TIME$="00:00:00"
>>10 FOR X=1 TO 10000
>>20 IF SQR(X)<>INT(SQR(X)) THEN 40
>>30 PRINT SQR(X),
>>40 NEXT X
>>45 PRINT TIME$
>>50 END
>>
>>NOTE:  This program also is an accuracy test, the correct results are
>>the numbers from 1 to 100.  The TRS-80, Apple, HP, C64 can't do it
>>right (they miss about 20 numbers).
>>
>>The time for the 6 MHz IBM-AT is 1 min, 13 sec
>>The time for the standard 5 MHz Z-100 is 1 min, 13 sec
>>The time for a turboed 7.37 MHz Z-100 is 49 sec
>
>O.K. You've spent the time to read the above, now for my 2 cents . . . 
>I've been chided here for buying a not-so-IBM-Compatible, Sanyo 555-2.
>
>I've upgraded it so that it would be a little more compatible, adding the
>256K and installing the new Video Board (VB).  They now say that it is
>approx. 80% compatible.  SO . . . how does it really compare to the
>IBM-PC?
>
>COMPUTER       VERSION               OUTPUT DIRECTED TO            TIME
>========       =======               ==================            ====
>IBM-PC         256K                       screen                   3:19
>
>Sanyo          VIDEO BOARD                screen                   1:44
>               with GW-Basic
>
>Can anyone out there in net-land explain these results?  How can a machine
>that is running on the same CPU, a supposedly slower clock, and approximately
>the same basic (at least all of the commands are the same) run twice as
>fast as it's competitor?
>
>Oh, yes, on BOTH machines, all 100 numbers were listed!

The above was edited a bit, but I have tried to maintain the gist. To the
above results, let me add the following:

COMPUTER       VERSION               OUTPUT DIRECTED TO            TIME
========       =======               ==================            ====
Tandy 1000     256k			  screen		   1:38

AT&T 6300      640k			  screen		   0:32
(8mhz 8086)


At this point, the results seem to get too bizarre to be believable. What I
fail to see is how the standard (I assume) IBM-PC can pull a time so far
from that of the Tandy 1000 or Sanyo. If I read my spec sheets, the Tandy
and the IBM are very close. (By the way, I ran the benchmark on a standard
IBM-PC here and it really does take that long under BASICA.)

The AT&T numbers seem to look like the "turboed" Z-100 numbers, but its
very far from the PC AT numbers. Is there really that big a difference
between an 8086 running at 8mhz and an 80286 running at 6mhz? 
-- 
Name:		John Ruschmeyer
US Mail:	Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764
Phone:		(201) 222-6600 x366
UUCP:		...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john	...!princeton!moncol!john
						   ...!pesnta!moncol!john
Silly Quote:
		I never wanted to be a barber.
		I wanted to be... a LUMBERJACK!