Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!aimt!breck
From: breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Byte review. 386 v '020
Message-ID: <80@aimt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 13:22:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: aimt.80
Posted: Wed Aug 26 13:22:05 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 02:50:54 EDT
References: <1376@imagen.UUCP| <116@faccs.UUCP> <799@unccvax.UUCP> <1178@csib.UUCP>
Organization: AIM Technology, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 28
Keywords: Benchmarks, 68020, 80386, 68030
Summary: question about ieee benchmarks

In article <1178@csib.UUCP>, jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) writes:

> From IEEE Micro, June 1987, "Evaluating Microprocessors" by John C. McCallum
> and Tat-Seng Chua.  From a table on page 74 (edited to show only 286 and the
> 020):
> 
>             286/287     M68020
>             16 Mhz     16 MhZ
> Scientific   0.14        0.43
> Commerical   0.48        1.44
> Systems      0.70        1.50
> General      0.31        0.93
> 

I notice that the 286 column is labeled as 286/287.  Does this mean that
the 286 also had a numeric co-processor?  Since the 68020 column isn't
labeled 68020/68881 does that mean that the 020 did NOT have a numeric
co-processor?  If so, then this is amazing.  The 020 without floating point
support beats a 286 with floating point support at SCIENTIFIC applications
and does it by better than 3-1!!!  This seems too good to be true.  Could
some kind soul post either confirmation or rufutation of my assumptions.  I
don't have easy access to the article in question.

Even if the 020 did have a numeric co-processor, it looks as if, "yes Virginia
the 020 does beat the pants of the 286."
-- 
Breck Beatie
uunet!aimt!breck