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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!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: Re: Need 286 "C" benchmark
Message-ID: <601@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 16:52:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.601
Posted: Wed Jun  5 16:52:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 06:30:13 EDT
References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP> <583@intelca.UUCP> <433@oakhill.UUCP>, <588@intelca.UUCP> <5631@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.arch:1324 net.lang.c:5350 net.micro:10680 net.micro.pc:4149 net.micro.68k:873

> It is always possible to find special cases where inferior processors
> outperform superior ones, as witness the recent brouhaha about the Z80
> outrunning the VAX 780 on function calls.  One of the tricky parts of
> benchmarking is deciding what constitutes a special case and what doesn't.
> 
> Fifteen years ago, >64KB of data would frequently have been classed as
> a special case.  Today, perceptions have changed, and it is not out of

I didn't say that >64K was a special case, rather, I said that it
certainly is not the ONLY case, and that working ONLY this issue (as he
does), Dave seems to imply that that is the ONLY case where the 68020
can consistently beat the 286 in benchmark performance, even when the
286 is running at a slower clock speed!   The benchmarks 
that we published, although they did require <64K of data, were NOT written
by Intel, and implying that they are all special cases isn't quite
fair, either, don't you think...or don't you?
-- 
It looks so easy, but looks sometimes deceive...

Ken Shoemaker, 386 Design Team, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,qantel}!intelca!kds
	
---the above views are personal.  They may not represent those of Intel.