Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Performance of the 532
Message-ID: <28200036@ccvaxa>
Date: Mon, 11-May-87 11:01:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.28200036
Posted: Mon May 11 11:01:00 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 14-May-87 05:52:46 EDT
References: <4294@nsc.nsc.com>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:nsc.nsc.com:4294:ccvaxa:28200036:000:1091
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    May 11 10:01:00 1987


  grenley@nsc.nsc.com:
> How about, instead, compiles?  They are usually CPU intense (unless you
> have a REALLY terrible disk system, and reflect the general non-numeric
> work-load typical of most cpus.  I recall reading analyses of
> instruction mixes from many different non-numeric applications that show
> they don't vary much.  Since compiles of Unix source files is a
> "portable test" it might be suitable...
----------
I don't think compilers are sufficiently comparable to make good
benchmarks, unless you wanted to specify the compiler, too (say,
compiling a particular object with gcc, producing output for some
arbitrary target machine).

I agree strongly with the need for more, and more representative,
benchmarks.  One of the nice things about the Lisp world is having
a relatively standard set of benchmarks to talk about in comparing
machines (though even there there are so many things not specified that
there is still romm to argue about whether your numbers are comparable).

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp:	ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa:	preece@gswd-vms