Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!labrea!decwrl!nsc!csi!csib!jwhitnel From: jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Byte review. 386 v '020 Message-ID: <1179@csib.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Aug-87 12:40:33 EDT Article-I.D.: csib.1179 Posted: Tue Aug 25 12:40:33 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Aug-87 03:31:36 EDT References: <1376@imagen.UUCP| <116@faccs.UUCP> <799@unccvax.UUCP> <1178@csib.UUCP> Reply-To: jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) Organization: Communications Solutions Inc., San Jose, Ca Lines: 43 Keywords: Benchmarks, 68020, 80386, 68030 In article <1178@csib.UUCP> jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) writes: In article <799@unccvax.UUCP| cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: |In article <116@faccs.UUCP>, dbt@faccs.UUCP (Data base translator ) writes: |> Looking at it this way, the '020 not only compares well with the '386; it |> blows the socks off its Intel counterpart, the '286. And the '030? I can't |> wait. | |It really angers many people to see blind statements such as yours about the |68020 'blowing the socks off the '286'... In case you hadn't been reading |the trade journals. AMD has recently been shipping 16Mhz versions of the |80286 which incidently contains, on the chip, memory management capabilities. |Something that the 68020 MUST go off chip for, namely, the 68851 MMU. I |believe most net readers would appreciate documented numbers, BEFORE you |make any more of these irritable BLIND statements. Here is another set of numbers also showing the 020 is faster then a 286 and a 386. From IEEE Micro Vol 6 No. 4. "A Benchmark Comparison of 32-bit Microprocessors." These are based on the EDN 16-bit bench marks, modified for 32 bit operation. The table is copied from Table 3 in the article and includes only the ratio column for dynamic memory. The 68000 was measured at 8 Mhz and the 286 at 10 Mhz, so I multiplied by the appropiate ratios to get numbers for 16 Mhz. The ratios are the time processor X took divided by the time a 68020 took. So a 286 to 2.45 times as long to complete the tests as did the 020 at 16 Mhz. 80286 2.45 68000 2.31 80386 1.79 All numbers at 16 Mhz 68020 N 1.96 68020 C 1.00 The N and C are No cache and Cache. Conclusion: The 020 blows the socks of the 286 and does a good job aginst the 386 as well. You milage may differ. | |/Carl |...decvax!mcnc!unnccvax!cbenda Jerry Whitnell It's a damn poor mind that can only Communication Solutions, Inc. think of one way to spell a word. -- Andrew Jackson