Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!amdahl!chongo
From: chongo@amdahl.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll)
Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k
Subject: Re: 32332: how much faster than the 32032 ?
Message-ID: <3657@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 23:53:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.3657
Posted: Wed Sep 10 23:53:41 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 03:01:19 EDT
References: <15218@mordor.ARPA>
Reply-To: chongo@amdahl.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll)
Distribution: net
Organization: Amdahl Corp, UTS Products Group
Lines: 55

In article <15218@mordor.ARPA> ehj@mordor.UUCP (Eric H Jensen) writes:
 >Given the same clock speeds how much faster is the 32332 than the
 >32032?  What are the significant contributors to the increased speed?

I can't understand why the folks at nsc have remained silent on this matter,
unless their system is down or they didn't get this message, or ...

They forced me to sign one of them 'will not disclose' papers, so I can't
give you details of what I have measured.  I can note the range of statements
have been from >3x all the way down to 'slightly slower in some cases'.

Be careful what you read, even from the above.  Sometimes the statements
are just plain BOGUS, sometimes they are mis-leading and sometimes they
are close to the truth.

The first case can come up when someone wanting to prop sales up, or a
customer who is upset and wants to damage the reputation of the chip.
Sad to say, but I have seen this happen with all major chip firms.

The second case can be for a few reasons:

	* the systems do not have the same number of wait states/memory speed
	* one system has 'burst mode' memory and another does not
	* the systems were running with different peripherals or kernels
	* one system has local memory, another has memory over a slower bus
	* one system used mmu X, another used mmu Y, another no mmu!
	* the compiler generates better code
	  [in the case of the 32016 vs. 32032, a better compiler will show
	   a 32016 to be closer to a 32032.  Why?  The more you stay within
	   CPU Reg's, the more the 16 bit bus does not detract from the 32016.
	   Even so, a better compiler will make BOTH run faster.  It just
	   helps the 32016 is bit more]
	  [And remember that the 32332 can operate over a 32,16, or 8 bit bus.]
	* a benchmark uses a given instruction or addressing mode which is
	  faster/slower on one chip

The third case is worth talking about:

	Say you do find a benchmark that is honest.  What does it mean
	for you?  Will your 32332 based system have a greater throughput?
	Will you be able to solve a problem quicker or cheaper?

In general, I have seen a 32332 system running faster than an 32032 system
in my post-nsc employment days.  There were a number of factors why, one
of which was the cpu.

The 32332 runs Unix.  It has had MUCH, MUCH, MUCH fewer stated problems than
the 32016 did way back when it first came out.  The 32332 has a number of
performance/architecture advantages over the 32032 and 32016.

In short the 32332 is a *YUMMO* part.

chongo <for a 32332 vs. 68020 discussion, see net.flame> /\oo/\

	[This is not an Amdahl or NSC official statement]