Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!indri!lll-winken!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 68020 vs. 68030 speed (was Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size)
Message-ID: <4199@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 15 May 89 20:14:26 GMT
References: <922@aber-cs.UUCP> <8081@killer.Dallas.TX.US> <700@tukki.jyu.fi> <13804@steinmetz.ge.com>
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 26

In article <13804@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@sungod.steinmetz (William Davidsen) writes:
> In article <4175@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> | One thing you have to keep in mind in the 80386 versus 68030 debate is...
> | the vast majority of the 80386 systems are crippled by the poor
> | performance of the AT bus. ...  In fact many
> | of our development tools run faster on the 286 or on a 386 in 286 mode
> | on the multibus.

>   You don't seem to mention what o/s you're using to determine this.

Well, how many operating systems do you know of that run on the multibus and
on the AT bus? UNIX (or variants) We're using Xenix System-III R3.5 on the 286
and Unix System V/386 R3.2 on the 386.

Yes, the 386 runs benchmarks much faster.

We're talking whole system performance here. It's like racing a Mustang
against a Porsche. The Mustang pulls ahead in the straight but the Porsche
with its little 6-cylinder engine catches up in the curves... because it
has a better suspension. Again, the 386AT is great when you're CPU bound, but
as soon as you hit the disk the 286multibus pulls ahead.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.