Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!philapd!ssp2!pb
From: pb@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Peter Brouwer)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size
Message-ID: <420@ssp2.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Date: 11 May 89 08:25:54 GMT
References: <907@aber-cs.UUCP> <4103@ficc.uu.net> <9329@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems, The Netherlands
Lines: 24

In article <9329@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes:
>>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)?  
Dhrystone figures cannot be used to compare systems performance!!!!!!!!
Dhrystone figures are heavily influenced by the strxxx functions.
For most unix 386 systems those functions are coded in assembler with
the repeat instruction. The C compiler we use does not generate those instructions.
What I am saying is that dhrystone comparison between 386 an 680x0 cannot
be used to compare systems. You need info about other benchmarks as well.
My experience is that a 68020 unix system performs better than a 368 system
both running with the same clock frequency. ( 16 Mhz ).
instructions 
-- 
#  Peter Brouwer,                     ##
#  Philips TDS, Dept SSP-V2           ## voice +31 55 432523
#  P.O. Box 245                       ## UUCP address ..!mcvax!philapd!pb
#  7300 AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands ## Internet pb@idca.tds.philips.nl