Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!udel!gatech!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: "Life" benchmarks
Message-ID: <1381@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jan 88 01:18:52 GMT
References: <438@pcrat.UUCP> <3460007@hpsrla.HP.COM>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 15

In article ... brucek@hpsrla.HP.COM (Bruce Kleinman) writes:
> | I wonder what current processors are capable of on the "life" benchmark?
> 
> BEFORE I POST ANY NUMBERS, I wish to make it clear that the performance
> achieved with BKLife is mostly due to the algorithm, not the processor.

You can provide a faster algorithm for calculating primes than the seive of
Eratosthenes, but if you do then you aren't running the Seive benchmark.

So, the Puffer benchmark isn't the same as the LPPS benchmark. The idea of
the LPPS benchmark is that it's a good test of parallel and array processors,
which the seive is notoriously bad at.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.