Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!monet.Berkeley.EDU!chow
From: chow@monet.Berkeley.EDU (Christopher Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: More on Byte Benchmarks
Message-ID: <20105@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 13-Aug-87 16:42:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.20105
Posted: Thu Aug 13 16:42:57 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 10:18:33 EDT
References: <AV87t=y00V4IyRA2MW@andrew.cmu.edu> <170@lakesys.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: chow@monet.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Christopher Chow)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 46

In article <170@lakesys.UUCP> steven@.UUCP (Steven Goodman) writes:
>Also Mac had cacheing where new Deskpro's has integrated.
>If this was a fair comparison should have had the 80387 in the new deskpro
>(6 times faster than 80287) and configured compaq with equal cache.

Equal cache size?  What do you mean - the processor cache size is fixed as its
a function of the chip design.  You can't possibly mean disk cache -- it has
nothing to do with floating point benchmarks.

>Code on the Mac was compiled using a 68020 C compiler.  So the Compaq was
>actually at a disadvantage seeing as it was not able to use their nice
>new 32 bit FPU where the Mac was and the Mac could speed up some of the
>disk action with it's cache and the Compaq was unable because they use

What makes you think the Mac code was compiled on a 68020 compiler?  The
article didn't mention which compilers which they used, not did they give any
details to what compiler options were enabled.  It was my _impression_ that
they used a non-68020 compiler w/o direct 68881 calls.  But I can't be sure
since they didn't provide this information.

>	What it comes down to is Intel has FINALLY made a good chip, it
>DOES outperform the 68020 at equal clock speed.   I am more interested in 
>the next generation the 486 vs the 030, that should be very interesting.

Has it really?  I hope you didn't use that article as your only source of
information.

Anyway, there's no point to continue debating the contents of this two page
article in Byte.  I think we can all agree that the Byte article was not worth
the paper it was printed on as it didn't give alot of information (compilers,
compile options, etc).  Perhaps someone could write Byte a nasty letter and
tell them to perform another benchmark and report all the relevant information.


Christopher Chow
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Internet:  chow@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.253.35)                    |
| Usenet:    ...{uw-beaver|ihnp4|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow    |
| Bitnet:    chow@crnlthry.bitnet                                           |
| Phone:     1-415-643-2953,  USPS:    2299 Piedmount Av, Berkeley CA 94720 |
| Delphi:    chow2            PAN:  chow                                    |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Christopher Chow
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Internet:  chow@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.253.35)                    |
| Usenet:    ...{uw-beaver|ihnp4|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow    |