Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!ranger
From: ranger@ecsvax.UUCP (Rick N. Fincher)
Newsgroups: net.micro.apple
Subject: Re: C128 vs Apple //e
Message-ID: <2084@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 12:49:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2084
Posted: Tue Sep 30 12:49:54 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Oct-86 00:45:09 EDT
References: <9800030@uiucuxa>
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Lines: 25

> 
> hi
> I'm from a Commodore - 128 kind of scene
> I ran a program on both the apple //e
> and a C-128
> 
> 10 fort=1 to 500
> 20 a=3.14159
> 30 b=sqr(val(str$(a*a)))
> 40 nextt
> 50 end
> 
> and the C-128 in the 80-col mode is almost 2x as fast
> by the way, the values of 'b' were almost identacle
> acually, the C-128 is almost (within 20%) as fast as
> an IBM PC.

That makes sense because the C128 runs at 2mhz compared to 1 mhz standard for
the apple //.  Drop in an accelerator however and the Apple runs twice as fast
as an IBM or the c128.  Where do you plug in an accelerator on a C128 and
why would you want to run bad software twice as fast?  The benchmark you
list is not totally hardware dependent.  The quality and type of Basic
will make a difference too.

Rick