Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!rutgers!husc6!ut-sally!utah-cs!sandra From: sandra@utah-cs.UUCP (Sandra J Loosemore) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: floating point benchmarks Message-ID: <4393@utah-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 18-Mar-87 21:38:34 EST Article-I.D.: utah-cs.4393 Posted: Wed Mar 18 21:38:34 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Mar-87 03:51:03 EST Organization: University of Utah CS Dept Lines: 149 Keywords: oops! I think I must have been asleep when I ran my earlier floating point benchmarks, because I took a more careful look at it and it turns out I wrote my numbers down backwards. Here are the correct numbers for primitive arithmetic operations. These are in 200-hz clock tick units for 1000 repetitions of the operation, with no attempt made to account the overhead of the loop. There was no significant difference between IEEE single and double precision here. IEEE FFP + 15 13 - 15 23 * 22 20 / 58 19 Ali Ozer recently sent me a floating point benchmark program called the "Savage" benchmark, which primarily tests the double-precision floating point math library. I've tacked on his original message to the end. Here's my C version: main () { int i, iloop; double a; long start, end; start = gettime (); a = 1.0; iloop = 2499; for (i=0; i