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!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!intelca!glen
From: glen@intelca.UUCP (Glen Shires)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Re: NEC V20 -- seems to work
Message-ID: <182@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 16:39:11 EST
Article-I.D.: intelca.182
Posted: Tue Jan 14 16:39:11 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 01:37:41 EST
References: <756@spar.UUCP> <1133@cp1.UUCP> <749@othervax.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.micro:13497 net.micro.pc:6537

> In article <1133@cp1.UUCP> hart@cp1.UUCP (Rod Hart) writes:
>
> >..[using NEC v30].. Norton's sysinfo
> >my at&t 6300 jumped from a 1.9 to a 3.9 in-
> >dex. Kind of hard to beleive, but it is TRUE!
>
> Please note, and tell all your friends, that Norton's SI test results
> show NO relationship to the actual overall machine performance.  The
> SI command is a simple timing test loop which contains and is heavily
> weighted by, a multiply instruction.  Thus the 'good' result with
> the V20, and little effect on the result from memory wait states etc.
>
> Lets try and kill this one stone dead before manufacturers start
> designing their machines to produce 'better' SI results!
>
> Norton where are you?  Can you do us all a service and publish a
> realistic system performance test??
>
> Ray Dunn.  ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray

I agree SI is weighted, but what is a realistic system performance test?
One application may be spreadsheet recalculation which is numerics intensive.
Another may be a compile with multiple libraries which is disk intensive
(Or a compile with RAMDISK which is string-operation intensive).

Maybe the best test is to simply time your favorite application.

--
^ ^    Glen Shires, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
O O     Usenet: {ucbvax!amd,pur-ee,hplabs}!intelca!glen
 >      ARPA:   "amd!intelca!glen"@BERKELEY
\-/    --- stay mellow