Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!usc-oberon!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: MIPS, Turbo Amiga, Mac II
Message-ID: <5661@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Mar-87 20:45:04 EST
Article-I.D.: ism780c.5661
Posted: Fri Mar 13 20:45:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Mar-87 20:34:34 EST
References: <12284247071.70.PKG.SPARKMAN@MCC.COM> <2704@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2743@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 23

In article <2743@well.UUCP> bj@well.UUCP (Jim Becker) writes:
>
>For example, the test that scored the 80386 at three to four MIPs tested noops.
>
>--- Not Kidding ----

Oh yeah?  Well I just did a benchmark that did more than noops ( I did
a loop that did an addition of two memory variables, and stored the
result in a memory variable.  The loop index was in a register ), 
and got 3 MIPS.

I was running on a production 80386 board from Intel, under Unix
System V.3, with two other users on the system.  They were both
just editing, so they shouldn't have slowed me down much.

On the other hand, what you say may not be wrong.  Running my
benchamark with the addition removed gave 3.1 MIPS.  I guess
the 386 either has a fast addition or a slow nop! :-)
-- 
Religion: just say "no"

Tim Smith       USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim   Compuserve: 72257,3706
                Delphi or GEnie: mnementh