Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site celerity.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!celerity!ron From: ron@celerity.UUCP (Ron McDaniels) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang.c,net.micro,net.micro.pc,net.micro.68k Subject: Re: Re: Re: Need 286 "C" benchmark Message-ID: <293@celerity.UUCP> Date: Tue, 28-May-85 19:28:49 EDT Article-I.D.: celerity.293 Posted: Tue May 28 19:28:49 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 02:49:36 EDT References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP> <583@intelca.UUCP> <433@oakhill.UUCP> <588@intelca.UUCP> Reply-To: ron@celerity.UUCP (Ron McDaniels) Organization: Celerity Computing, San Diego, Ca. Lines: 49 Xref: watmath net.arch:1286 net.lang.c:5327 net.micro:10594 net.micro.pc:4092 net.micro.68k:841 In article <588@intelca.UUCP> kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) writes: > >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. I just can't let this go by (Lord knows, I should)! If 64k segments aren't a problem and the "large system model" is so blasted good (if you like to go into interpretive mode when you execute), why does the 386 have a 32-bit segment length? 64k segments are architecturally stinko. I realize you still have to sell chips so that you can pay the bills, but stop making silly comparisons. The 8086 family are great for controllers and the like but I wouldn't want my sister to marry one! The 68000 and the 320xx are *much* better machines in general applications simply because you *can* have data objects (should I mention code segments?) larger than 64k bytes. You know, I can remember having the same kind of "discussions" re: 8080 -vs- 6502. Great fun!!!! R. L. (Ron) McDaniels CELERITY COMPUTING 9692 Via Excelencia Way San Diego, California 92126 (619) 271-9940 {decvax || ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ron -or- akgua!celerity!ron "The above views represent ALL right thinking individuals and anyone disagreeing with them is obviously not playing with a full deck". (a smiley face for all you humorousless nurds out there that have to have even the most obvious attempts at humor spelled out to them in painstaking detail ;>)