Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!nosc!marlin!aburto
From: aburto@marlin.UUCP (Alfred A. Aburto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Savage Benchmark Results
Message-ID: <843@marlin.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 19:56:28 EST
Article-I.D.: marlin.843
Posted: Tue Nov 18 19:56:28 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Nov-86 06:04:46 EST
References: <1150@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <3830@videovax.Tek.COM> <838@marlin.UUCP> <1094@navajo.STANFORD.EDU>
Reply-To: aburto@marlin.UUCP (Alfred A. Aburto)
Distribution: net
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 23
Keywords: Multitasking?, Dec-20, Tandy PC-5.

In article <1094@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> ali@navajo.UUCP (Ali Ozer) writes:
>
>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.

The Amiga Savage results are not CPU time.  But they were run with a
no additional user generated tasks running in the background though.  I
thought this was a reasonable approach as those tasks that do interrupt
the program were (I hope) necessary system tasks.

Anyway you're right that the Amiga results are not the CPU seconds for
the program run.  I found that these other system tasks lower the Amiga's
7.16 MHz clock rate to an effective system clock rate of approximately
6.2 MHz which is near to what Tom Rokicki found (17% slower).

l burto