Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang.c,net.micro,net.micro.pc,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Need 286 "C" benchmark
Message-ID: <1494@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 20:17:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.1494
Posted: Mon Jun  3 20:17:49 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 00:45:04 EDT
References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP> <583@intelca.UUCP> <433@oakhill.UUCP> <588@intelca.UUCP> <293@celerity.UUCP>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.arch:1307 net.lang.c:5341 net.micro:10657 net.micro.pc:4126 net.micro.68k:858

In article <293@celerity.UUCP> ron@celerity.UUCP (Ron McDaniels) writes:
>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.

I read the enclosed quote from Ken Shoemaker and nowhere do I see that he
says 64K segments aren't a problem. What he does say is for programs
that require less than 64K of data, a 286 competes nicely with a 68020.

I enclose the quote in question below.

>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.
-- 
 There's always tomorrow.

 Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA