Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss
From: rnss@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Ron Schreiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: More ST Floating Point Performance
Message-ID: <1996@ihuxy.ATT.COM>
Date: Thu, 11-Jun-87 14:16:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxy.1996
Posted: Thu Jun 11 14:16:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 12:38:32 EDT
References: <1959@trwrb.UUCP>
Reply-To: rnss@ihuxy.UUCP (Ron Schreiner)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

In article <1959@trwrb.UUCP> sansom@trwrb.UUCP (Richard Sansom) writes:

>I asked Joe Knapp (ihnp4!asr2!jmk) to send me a copy of orbit.c so I could
>compile and execute with MWC 2.0.  .....

>results

>	machine		compiler	run time (s)	accuracy
>	===========	============	========	==========
...
>    >>  520ST		MWC 2.0		180		excellent
>	Amiga 1000	Manx  -lm	25		poor

>The good news is that the results were _exactly_ the same as those produced
>by the VAX 11/785.  The bad news is that the ST is still much slower than it
>should be (based on the Amiga's performance).

What good is 8 times faster if it's not right ?
I'll bet I can write a floating point package that will run 16 times
faster than the Amiga just as long as you are willing to give up accuracy.

But seriously folks, doesn't the Amiga have a math co-processor ?
I had heard rumors to that effect but I don't know for sure.