Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!oscvax!rico
From: rico@oscvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Memory board timings
Message-ID: <440@oscvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jul-86 18:24:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: oscvax.440
Posted: Sat Jul 19 18:24:31 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jul-86 19:13:50 EDT
References: <25@unc.unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: rico@oscvax.UUCP (Rico Mariani)
Distribution: net
Organization: Ontario Science Centre, Toronto
Lines: 35
Summary: 

In article <25@unc.unc.UUCP> gibson@unc.UUCP writes:
>>In article <737@Navajo.ARPA> rokicki@Navajo.UUCP writes:
>	(CardCo board:)
>>>
>>>	512K machine, 1.1		988 dhrystones
>>>	1536K machine, 1.1		674 dhrystones
>>>		Loss			 31.8%
>>>	512K machine, 1.2 beta II	983 dhrystones
>>>	1536K machine, 1.2 beta II	664 dhrystones
>>>		Loss			 32.5%
>>>
>In article <435@oscvax.UUCP> rico@oscvax.UUCP (Rico Mariani) writes:
>	(Comspec board:)
>>
>>    512K machine, 1.1		975.04 dhrys/sec = 51.28 secs for 50000 cycles
>>    2.5M machine, 1.1		967.49 dhrys/sec = 51.68 secs for 50000 cycles
>>    Comparison:  99.23% of top speed = 0.77% Loss
>>
>>    512K machine, 1.2 Beta II	976.56 dhrys/sec = 51.20 secs for 50000 cycles
>>    2.5M machine, 1.2 Beta II	963.58 dhrys/sec = 51.89 secs for 50000 cycles
>>    Comparison:  98.67% of top speed = 1.33% Loss
>
>Were these tests run with the benchmarks *located* in the extra memory,
>or were they just run with the extra memory attached? Of course, I would
>assume the memory was being used, but I would like to see this explicitly 
>stated.
>

I can't speak for the CARDCO tests, but the tests I did were with the
benchmark program actually running in the "fast" ram.

	That's all
	 -Rico

	...{ihnp4|allegra|decvax|watmath|linus}!utzoo!oscvax!rico