Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!oliveb!intelca!clif
From: clif@intelca.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k
Subject: Re: Benchmarks - Intel vs 32 bitters
Message-ID: <89@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jun-86 18:38:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.89
Posted: Wed Jun 11 18:38:18 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jun-86 07:25:49 EDT
References: <801@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 23

> 
>       For those who keep pointing at the higher ratings for Intel
>   chips on the Dhrystone compared to the 32k ratings, I challenge you
>   to do any benchmark using arrays, looping, etc. with a number greater
>   than 64k.  Once you hit that magic number, the segmentation of the 
>   Intel chips comes into play and down goes the speed.  Try doing the
>   Sieve of Eratosthenes (sp?) with the number of primes being 80,000.      
>   Then let's talk about their speed versus the 32k.
> 
>       Also, remember that one benchmark means nothing.  Why use a Cray
>   for Lotus 1-2-3 instead of a PC?
> 
>   John Krist
>   U. Texas Astronomy Dept.

I have run all of these benchmarks with large arrays, lots of loops
etc.  I am quite sure they were much faster than the 32032.  The Intel 
chip was the 386. 
-- 
Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif
	
{Stamp Out Stupid Signatures}