Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!pyramid!decwrl!labrea!navajo!ali
From: ali@navajo.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Savage Benchmark Results
Message-ID: <1094@navajo.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17-Nov-86 18:28:52 EST
Article-I.D.: navajo.1094
Posted: Mon Nov 17 18:28:52 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Nov-86 09:15:29 EST
References: <1150@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <3830@videovax.Tek.COM> <838@marlin.UUCP>
Reply-To: ali@navajo.UUCP (Ali Ozer)
Distribution: net
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 35
Keywords: Multitasking?, Dec-20, Tandy PC-5.

In article <838@marlin.UUCP> aburto@marlin.UUCP (Alfred A. Aburto) writes:
>****************************************************
>*           Savage Benchmark Results               *
>* Al Aburto/Lew Wolfgang/Larry Phillips/And Others *
>****************************************************
>System         CPU / FPP   CLOCK        Language          Time     Error
>			   (MHz)                          (sec)  Abs(a-2500)
>Turbo-Amiga  (68020/68881) 14.32   Absoft F77  V2.2B       0.4     2.0 E-12
>VAX-8600                           Fortran 77              0.9     1.8 E-08
>VAX-11/750                         Fortran 77              1.9     6.6 E-10
>Amiga        (68000/-----)  7.16   MetaComCo ABasiC V1.0  39.7     2.7 E+02
>Macintosh    (68000/-----)         MAC C                 221.0     (?)
>Commodore 128( 6502/-----)  2.0    Basic Interpreter     256.0     9.0 E-04
> ...

Thanks for the benchmarks!  I'm happy to see the Amiga up there.

I ran the savage program on a Dec 2060 Mainframe, and it gave an answer
to within 2.0 E-12 (as good as the best in the above table) in 1.6 CPU 
seconds (4 times slower than the Turbo Amiga!). 

One question concerning the benchmarks on the Amiga --- Are they cpu time 
or just plain real time? Tom Rokicki once wrote to the net that his
68000 version of Life was running 17% slower than he figured, and one
reason people came up with was the multitasking overhead of the Amiga.
For example, the Dec20 figure above is the CPU time --- The real time was
more on the order of 6 seconds.  Considering Amiga is a multitasking
machine, the benchmarks should give the CPU time, if possible.

In any case, I also ran the program using Basic on a Tandy PC-5 Pocket
Computer. It gave the result to within 2.7 E-3 (almost as good as a C128)
in 961 seconds (16 minutes!). Oh well, and that thing cost me 1/12th as 
much as an Amiga! 

Ali Ozer, ali@score.stanford.edu