Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site enmasse.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!grkermi!panda!enmasse!dave From: dave@enmasse.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro.68k Subject: RE: (Intel disbelief) and net.micro.best Message-ID: <411@enmasse.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 20:16:59 EDT Article-I.D.: enmasse.411 Posted: Wed Jun 12 20:16:59 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 06:33:41 EDT References: <155@soph.UUCP> <> <157@soph.UUCP> <594@intelca.UUCP> <446@oakhill.UUCP> <1557@amdcad.UUCP> Reply-To: dave@enmasse.UUCP (Dave Brownell) Organization: Enmasse Computer Corp., Acton, Mass. Lines: 77 [ Coming back from a brief net-absence to find fiery flames ...] (yes, I'd vote for net.micro.best too) POINT 1 -- APOLOGY / FINGER POINTING Dave Trissel of Motorola, in some recent article: > In article <594@intelca.UUCP> clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) writes: > >> In article <> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >> > > >> > Gosh, how could a 6 MHz 80286 do as good as a 12 MHz 68010? > >If there is no 12 MHZ 68010, why does Mot claim that a 16.6MHz 68020 is > >2.5x performance of a 12 Mhz 68010? > My my, Phil. Where did you come up with your information? We have been > shipping 12.5 Megahertz parts for over a year now. (Phil later replied ...) - Just a minute. I did not say "there is no such part as a 12 MHz 68010". - I said "how could a 6 MHz 80286 do as good as a 12 MHz 68010". Someone - else (I forget who) said there are no 12 MHz 68010s. - ... - If you sense that I'm annoyed at Clif for misquoting me, you're right. That's my goof -- I was told that there were no 12 MHz parts, and put it on the net (mea maxima culpa!!). Phil, on the other hand, was misquoting me in the first place: none of my numbers referred to a 12 MHz 68010! Maybe one good misquote deserved another. :-) POINT 2 -- WHY CAN'T ANYONE READ??? Tim Smith, <1012@callan.UUCP> writes: > > [ He is talking about 1K block transfers ] > NO I WAS NOT !!!! See below, this is the thing that makes the numbers interesting in the first place!!! > > My numbers, using the fastest block move instructions possible: > > Intel family processors: > > 8088, 4.77 MHz 130 copies/sec > > 8086, 8 MHz 260 copies/sec > > 80286, 6 MHz 450 copies/sec (real mode) > > Motorola ones: > > 68000, 12 MHz 340 copies/sec (SLOW block move loop) [ & waitstates ] > > 68010, 10 MHz 425 copies/sec > ...... > I tried this on my 10Mhz 68010 with no wait states. > ..... > 68010, 10Mhz ~1600 copies/sec ( word aligned buffers ) > ..... > Are you SURE you don't have wait states? If you think I was comparing block copies you miss the WHOLE point of the numbers, the only thing that makes them interesting. They do SIGNIFICANT PROTOCOL PROCESSING between the block copies, including APPLICATIONS CODE also. I'd never seen what I consider a representative comparison of these processors on IDENTICAL SOURCE CODE, so I posted the results. Yes, block copy times dominate the calculation (typical of how many applications???) ... no, they are not block copy benchmarks, which I consider pretty boring. The reason I posted those numbers in the first place was because they showed something MORE than either vendor's propaganda, and they matched my actual impressions using the various machines. Anybody with a similar comparison will be welcomed on net.micro.best, whenever that appears. :-)