Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!prls!mips!mash From: mash@mips.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k Subject: Re: Recent Motorola ad seen in Byte Message-ID: <241@winchester.mips.UUCP> Date: Sun, 29-Mar-87 15:09:17 EST Article-I.D.: winchest.241 Posted: Sun Mar 29 15:09:17 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 31-Mar-87 01:08:36 EST References: <362@sbcs.UUCP> <75900002@uiucdcsp> Reply-To: mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey) Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 56 In article <75900002@uiucdcsp> ericson@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >> responds: >[beginning deleted] >>highest-performance 32-bit microprocessor...The MC68020 is still the >>highest-performance microprocessor..." They cited Whetstones & Dhrystones. > >I would like to point out my highlight above - Motorola claims it is >the hottest Microprocessor. Obviously, the Vax 8000 series are not >in this category. Additionally, the Clipper is a board (with multiple >chips) device. I think the same is true for the Mips machines. One >should also remove the FP's when only comparing the CPU's. C'mon, >let's compare these things fairly. I tried to compare as fairly as possible: the VAX (of course) is a different animal, and I certainly wasn't suggesting it was a microprocessor! If you look at the basic CPU complexes in the referenced processors, using the example that the Moto ad cited [Sun3/260]: 1) Sun: 68020 + 68881 + 64K SRAM cache + bunch of SRAM for memory management + tag comparison logic + other glue [I think]. 2) Clipper: 1 CPU + 2 CAMMU [cache/MMU] chips, 4K each. CPU includes FP. 3) M/500: CPU (R2000 chip) + FPU (R2010) + 24K cache + 4 address latches 4) M/800: CPU + FPU + 128K cache + 4 address latches. How can you remove the FPs when they're comparing Whetstones? Note the that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make serious performance comparisons between "bare" microprocessors, since the same "bare" micro can show radically different performance when placed into different system environments. (This can be seen often, where the same 16.7MHz 68020 gives different performance according to the MMU strategy, memory system, etc.] This set of examples was picked to be as comparable as possible, i.e., honest-to-goodness low-chip-count micros in real systems. BTW, I later received the Intel numbers that I think Moto was complaining about, although it's hard to tell whether the complaints of "unreal hot-box are fair or not" - I make no judgements whatsoever. Here are some numbers for a 20MHz Intel 80386+80387, MultiBus I, 64K write-thru cache, 2-3 wait states for cache miss [that's the part that seems "hot"]. Green Hills 1.8.2G 7,810 Dhrystones (*note: probably used optimization) 1,730 KiloWhetstones, DP .19 MFlops, DP Linpack, Rolled Intel also has numbers for use with a Weitek 1167, but I think that the 386+387 comparison is probably more comparable with the 68020/68881. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!mash, DDD: 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086