Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size
Message-ID: <9329@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 9 May 89 22:51:11 GMT
References: <907@aber-cs.UUCP> <4103@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 21

In article <4103@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <907@aber-cs.UUCP>, pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>> As to some small bit of available evidence, it is not very controversial
>> that the 386 is usually a tad faster than the 68020 with roughly equivalent
>> system technology (e.g. a cached 386 at 20Mhz tipically beats a cached 68020
>> at 25 Mhz under gcc), and code size is a tad smaller as well.
>
>Of course you realise you're comparing intel's latest production technology
>with Motorola's last-but-one generation. How does the 80386 compare to the
>68030?

If you take a look at the latest dhrystone (for whatever it's worth) 
results, you'll see that the 80386 does it faster than the 68030.  

There seems to be alot of variability though - like a 16Mhz '386 is 
faster than a NeXt 33Mhz 68030 (both using GCC)?  


-- 
  Jon Zeeff			zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
  Ann Arbor, MI			sharkey!b-tech!zeeff