Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!amdahl!chuck
From: chuck@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Charles Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: missing Dhrystone 2.1 (1 of 3 &
Message-ID: <9a/70c8lDS1010CHinI@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Date: 20 Jul 88 05:03:06 GMT
References: <4232@cbmvax.UUCP> <76700035@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1988Jul18.231331.19575@utzoo.uucp> <22406@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Reply-To: chuck@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Charles Simmons)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale  CA
Lines: 23

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...
>
>-- 
>	-- Tim Olson
>	Advanced Micro Devices
>	(tim@delirun.amd.com)

Sorry Tim.  Yes, it is a dual-processor model.  But the measurement
was 90K per processor.

-- Chuck