Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!sdcsvax!celece!fellman
From: fellman@celece.ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Floating point
Message-ID: <6624@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>
Date: 12 Jun 89 05:18:45 GMT
References: <89157.122728UH2@PSUVM>
Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: rfellman@ucsd.edu (Ronald Fellman)
Organization: UCSD Department of ECE
Lines: 21

In article <89157.122728UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:
>Has anyone benchmarked the floating point speed on the NeXT.  It
>comes with a 68881 or 68882, doesn't it, so unless it is crippled
>in some way it shouldn't be too bad.
>
>I ask because an aquaintence says that the NeXT is not known for
>its floating point speed, which implies that it is slower than it
>should be, assuming that we know it isn't a Cray.

I have compared a MacII, a NeXT, a Sun 4/280, and a DecStation3100
running the CD3040 opamp in Berkeley spice3b1. (I don't have the
graphics part running on the NeXT but that didn't matter for this
benchmark.)

Here's the results:
MacII: 59 sec., NeXT: 21 sec., Sun 4/280: 8.7 sec., DecStation 3100:4.0sec.

Although I haven't tried it against a Sun 3/60, I'd guess that the
NeXT would be about 25% faster.

-ron fellman (rfellman@ucsd.edu)