Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!amdahl!littauer
From: littauer@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Tom Littauer)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: missing Dhrystone 2.1 (1 of 3 &
Message-ID: <9amsvb52K11010cyawo@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Date: 20 Jul 88 02:32:51 GMT
References: <4232@cbmvax.UUCP> <76700035@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1988Jul18.231331.19575@utzoo.uucp> <22406@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Reply-To: littauer@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Tom Littauer)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale  CA
Lines: 28

In article <22406@amdcad.AMD.COM> tim@delirun.amd.com (Tim Olson) writes:
>In article <1988Jul18.231331.19575@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>| In article <76700035@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>| >I certainly find it hard to believe that the top of the line Amdahl
>| >machine achieves 90,000+ Dhrystones...
>| > It nearly doubles the performance of the best Cray compiler
>| >reported (admittedly, compiling C for a Cray is probably hard, but
>| >Crays are very decent scaler machines!  sheesh)...
>| 
>| Ah, but Crays are *not* good character machines, and Dhrystone is known
>| to be excessively string-intensive.
>
>And the Amdahl machine referenced is a dual-processor model -- I assume
>that this was 45K Dhrystones per processor...

No, 91K per each of 2 in a 5990-700 and 4 in a -1400... To be fair, that's
not the released compiler (it was GNU cc). Does GNU do Dhrystone
fakery? Anyway, the released compiler was 74K per each and it isn't
optimized for Dhrystone. Our processor guys bitch that Dhrystone doesn't
show our processors to be as fast as they really are, but that's an
entirely different discussion.
-- 
UUCP:  littauer@amdahl.amdahl.com
  or:  {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ames,uunet}!amdahl!littauer
DDD:   (408) 737-5056
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 337,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086

I'll tell you when I'm giving you the party line. The rest of the time
it's my very own ravings (accept no substitutes).