Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekig.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!tekig!maxg
From: maxg@tekig.UUCP (Max Guernsey)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Z-100 blows away IBM-AT
Message-ID: <2627@tekig.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 18:22:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekig.2627
Posted: Fri Jun  7 18:22:21 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 20:43:20 EDT
References: <463@bgsuvax.UUCP> <327@moncol.UUCP>
Reply-To: maxg@tekig.UUCP (Max Guernsey)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 89
Summary: 

In article <327@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes:
>>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!


Is it because the BASICA and BASIC on the AT still go to ROM for some of the
subroutines?

maxg@tekig5

PS has anybody got a good termcap for Crosstalk's vt100?