Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!alberta!bjorn From: bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k Subject: Re: National's 32332 (Apples and oranges really) Message-ID: <930@alberta.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Jun-86 08:41:59 EDT Article-I.D.: alberta.930 Posted: Fri Jun 6 08:41:59 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jun-86 17:52:15 EDT References: <746@usl.UUCP> <253@spar.UUCP> <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Lines: 122 In article <55@intelca.UUCP> clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) writes: > 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. Far be it from me to call Mr. Purkiser biased B-). But let's get it straight that the PC/AT benchmark being referred to is "SMALL MODEL" and (correct me if I'm wrong) 16 bit ints. Contrast that to 32 bit addresses and ints in the Balance. Note also that benchmarks figures for other NS32k systems are available from the latest Dhrystone posting. Here are the figures for 80286s and NS32ks: (Excuse the length of the benchmark results. The PC/AT is one the most benchmarked systems, by virtue of its popularity unfortunately [That's my reasoned bias showing through]. I felt that the full breadth of 80286 "performance" would not be as easily discernible without all the numbers that are available). From message <1369@homxb.UUCP>: |*----------------DHRYSTONE VERSION 1.1 RESULTS BEGIN-------------------------- |* |* MACHINE MICROPROCESSOR OPERATING COMPILER DHRYSTONES/SEC. |* TYPE SYSTEM NO REG REGS |* -------------------------- ------------ ----------- --------------- |* |* Compaq II 80286-8Mhz MSDOS 3.1 MS C 3.0 1086 1140 LM ---- ---------------------------- |* IBM PC/AT 80286-7.5Mhz Venix/286 SVR2 cc 1159 1254 *15 |* Compaq II 80286-8Mhz MSDOS 3.1 MS C 3.0 1190 1282 MM |* Compaq II 80286-8Mhz MSDOS 3.1 MS C 3.0 1351 1428 |* |*----------------DHRYSTONE VERSION 1.0 RESULTS BEGIN-------------------------- |* |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz PCDOS 3.0 CI-C86 2.1 666 684 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz Xenix 3.0 cc 684 704 MM |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz Xenix 3.0 cc 704 714 LM |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz PCDOS 3.0 MS 3.0(large) 833 847 LM ---- ---------------------------- |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz Xenix 3.0 cc -i 909 925 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz Xenix 3.0 cc 892 961 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz Venix/86 2.1 cc 961 1000 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz PCDOS 3.0 b16cc 2.0 943 1063 |* NSC ICM-3216 NSC 32016-10Mhz UNIX SVR2 cc 1041 1084 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz PCDOS 3.0 MS 3.0(small) 1063 1086 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz Venix/286 SVR2 cc 1056 1149 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz PCDOS 3.0 Datalight 1.10 1190 1190 |* ATT PC6300+ 80286-6Mhz MSDOS 3.1 b16cc 2.0 1111 1219 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz PCDOS 3.1 Wizard 2.1 1136 1219 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz PCDOS 3.0 CI-C86 2.20M 1219 1219 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz PCDOS 3.1 Lattice 2.15 1250 1250 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-7.5Mhz Venix/86 2.1 cc 1190 1315 *15 |* Intel 380 80286-8Mhz Xenix R3.0up1 cc 1250 1315 *16 |* Sequent Balance 8000 NS32032-10MHz Dynix 2.0 cc 1250 1315 N12 |* IBM PC/DSI-32 32032-10Mhz MSDOS 3.1 GreenHills 2.14 1282 1315 C3 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-8Mhz Venix/86 2.1 cc 1275 1380 *16 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-6Mhz MSDOS 3.0 Microsoft 3.0 1250 1388 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |* ATT PC6300+ 80286-6Mhz MSDOS 3.1 CI-C86 2.20M 1428 1428 |* COMPAQ/286 80286-8Mhz Venix/286 SVR2 cc 1326 1443 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-7.5Mhz Venix/286 SVR2 cc 1333 1449 *15 |* IBM PC/AT 80286-9Mhz SCO Xenix V cc 1540 1556 *18 |* NEC PC-98XA 80286-8Mhz PCDOS 3.1 Lattice 2.15 1724 1724 @ |* IBM PC/STD 80286-8Mhz MSDOS 3.0 Microsoft 3.0 1724 1785 C2 |* Intel 310AP 80286-8Mhz Xenix 3.0 cc 1893 2009 (NOTE: LM == Large Model, MM == Medium Model, all other 80286 == small model) (Presumably the ICM-3216 and the Balance are running with an MMU, while on the DSI-32 an MMU is optional) I would like to call attention to the results for LARGE MODEL code, not nearly as impressive as when the 80286 is operating closer to its, in more sense than one, origins. It would be interesting to obtain figures for LARGE MODEL code with 32 bit ints (My guess is a further deterioration in speed by 15 to 30%). Last time I checked, the Xenix C compiler is Microsoft C version 3, but it's not clear whether that is the compiler referred to as "cc" in the Xenix 3.0 benchmarks. In any case it's not known which of the above benchmarks under the version 1.0 heading are actually 1.1 benchmarks. The difference in speed between the two versions is on the order of 10 to 20%. It would seem that the former of the ^^^^ underlined figures is for 1.1 and the latter for 1.0. > 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. I may find that hard to imagine. But why would you? If we are to believe the Dhrystone figures posted to the net, your company did just that in going from the 8086 to the 80286, ie. obtained a 2x speedup for the same clock frequencies. > This is just the observations of a disinterested :-) person. You may be disinterested, but I am not. I'm tempted to resort to personal insults here, as the amount of resources that have been/will be spent on x86 systems does not bear thinking (or smiling) about, but of course I'll refrain. > -- > Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. > HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS > {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif Bjorn R. Bjornsson Department of Computing Science University of Alberta Edmonton ihnp4!alberta!bjorn