Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!neoucom!wtm
From: wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Serious math-coprocessor on the 80386 (80387 ?)
Message-ID: <579@neoucom.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-May-87 12:27:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: neoucom.579
Posted: Sat May  9 12:27:35 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 10-May-87 08:53:46 EDT
References: <3477@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Lines: 19
Summary: Sad, but true...

In article <3477@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mic@lapis.berkeley.edu (Michel Bruneau) writes:
> It is a well know fact that the 8086-8087 combinaison beats easily the
> 80286-80287 setup in term of numbercrunching speed

I was surprised when I ran the same floating point benchmark on an
AT&T 6300 with a NEC V-30 / 8087 and an 8 MHz 1-wait state Epson
Equity III and disovered that the AT&T with the V-30 replacement
chip for its original 8086 performed at about 1.4 times the level
of the '286 machine!

Both tests were run from memory for supposed fairness.  In most
real life situations, the 286 machine beats the 6300 beause it has
a faster disk and the 286 performs non-FPU instructions much more
efficiently beause of its wider internal architecture, etc.

What is most dissipointing is the number of programs that don't
offer FPU support options.

  mits Me