Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!watcsc!ross
From: ross@watcsc.uucp (Ross Ridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: what is this chip(65C802)
Summary: PC vs. C64. My computer is better than yours so, Nyaaah!
Keywords: 6502, 8088
Message-ID: <1989Apr4.221550.19284@watcsc.uucp>
Date: 5 Apr 89 03:15:45 GMT
References: <16510@cup.portal.com> <7734@killer.Dallas.TX.US> <2310@maccs.McMaster.CA> <89Apr2.223029edt.2745@godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu> <2325@maccs.McMaster.CA>
Reply-To: ross@watcsc.UUCP (Ross Ridge)
Organization: University of Waterloo Computer Science Club
Lines: 52

In article <2325@maccs.McMaster.CA> cs3b3aj@maccs.UUCP (Stephen M. Dunn) writes:
>I don't have a C128 to play around with, but I do have a 64 (with a broken
>1541) back home, and I did a C benchmark on it.  The code I used was taken
>from BYTE (don't ask me which issue), and it included four tests:  fibonacci,
>a floating test, the Savage benchmark, and the standard sieve of Eratosthenes.
>On the Fibonacci, the 64 died (not enough stack, so it hung).  On the Sieve,
>the 64 had 16.2% of the performance of a real IBM PC.  On the floating
>test, it had 64.3% performance, and the Savage said that the 64 had 70.3% of
>the performance.  (I suspect, though, that the C compiler on the 64 used the
>ROM BASIC floating point routines, which are single-precision, whereas the
>PC compiler used the double precision that good C compilers are supposed to
>use.

C Power uses the ROM's 5 byte floating point routines, but most good C
compiliers will use single-precision (4 byte) artithmitic
if it can get away with it.

>Now, of course I realize that this is a comparison of the two compilers as
>well as the hardware, but it shows just how much slower the 64 is.

No, not really, C compilers for the 64 are really bad compared to C compiliers
for other systems.  I believe Abacus's C compiler is a P code interpreter, and
C Power C, doesn't do any significant optimizations (not even constant
folding).  This really isn't a fair comparison because no "serious"
delopement for the 64 is done using C.  A fair comparison would be 
assembly language verses assembly language.  Or even 6502 assembly verses,
IBM PC C language since most PC software being written now is done in C.

>Anyway, I'm going to stick with my AT clone.  The 64 was nice while its
>disk drive lasted, but it just can't hope to compare with machines using
>much more recent technology.

1981? Recent technology, hardly...

Well I don't use my 64 because of its great speed, but nor would I use an
IBM PC (or even AT) for that reason either.  I use my 64 because it has
great games, there are not many games available for the PC that are not
available for my 64, and CGA graphics are blech.  Gimme '386 machine with
VGA (or better), and good selection of games, and then I'd think of using
machine capable of running operating systems written by MicroSoft.

>Besides, there's such a great variety of software for the PC family, and
>I'm just continuing on here because our news posting program requires me
>to half more than half new text.

Well then delete some of the old irrelevent text.

-- 
  l/									   //
 [oo]                       !watmath!watcsc!ross			  [OO]
 -()-									  -()-
  db			The Dreaded Commodore 64 User		 	   //