Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!nsc!csi!epimass!oliveb!intelca!clif
From: clif@intelca.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: National's 32332
Message-ID: <55@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-May-86 12:45:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.55
Posted: Fri May 30 12:45:18 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 31-May-86 15:28:30 EDT
References: <746@usl.UUCP> <253@spar.UUCP> <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1768@gitpyr.UUCP> <2020@hammer.UUCP> <216@motsj1.UUCP> <3522@ukma.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 41

> In article <216@motsj1.UUCP> kjm@motsj1.UUCP (Kevin Meyer) writes:
> >>
> >> I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
> >> with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
> >> than a 16MHz 68020.
> >>
> >Shouldn't this be posted to net.rumor?
> 
> 
> Or maybe net.jokes?
> -- 
> David Herron,  cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET, david@uky.csnet

	Would someone post the benchmarks so the rest of us could
evaluate the results.   

	I think someone should run the Dhrystone benchmarks on a 32332
machine otherwise, I'd be force to to conclude that the part really
wasn't that fast.

	The only 32K machine that has Dhrystone numbers posted to the net
is the Sequent Balance for a single processor.  

	The results were 1250 without Reg variables and 1315 with reg
variables.  These numbers were slower than a 6 MHz PC-AT with MicroSoft
C 3.0.  

	In order for the 15 MHz 32332 to be faster than an 68020 (much less
a 386) it would have be 3x faster than an 10MHz 32032.  The increased
clock frequency accounts for 1.5x, I am hard pressed to imagine where
the other 2x could come from.

	This is just the observations of a disinterested :-) person.

-- 
Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif
	
{standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect
the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }