Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!srcsip!coltrane!shankar
From: shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: 68000 vs. 65816
Message-ID: <58458@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 14 Feb 90 18:21:50 GMT
References: <16728.apple.net@pro-sol>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Reply-To: shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Lines: 30


> [Lots of messages about benchmarking the 65816 vs. the 68000 deleted.]

Well, to get a quantitative comparison of various processors (8085, 80286,
68000, 68020), there was an article in IEEE Micro (June 87) which identified
instruction mixes for various general applications (scientific, commercial,
systems, and general).  I can apply these benchmarks to the 65816, but the only
problem is that they require four operations, which I don't have the time to
code.  So if anybody has either code or times (best, worst, and average) for
the following two operations, I'll post the results.

These are the four operations:
  Mul16 -   C <= A*B where A, B, and C are all 16 bit integers.  Note that 
            the result is only 16 bits, so you don't need to worry about
            overflows.  All three are stored in memory.
  Fadd32 -  C <= A+B where all are 32 bit floating point numbers.
  Fadd64 -  Same as Fadd32, except with 64-bit format
  Fmul32 -  Same as Fadd32 wxcept with multiplies

So if anybody has any fast code for any of these, mail me either the code or
the execution times, and I'll figure out how the 65816 ranks.  All code should
use native mode 65816 insturctions, and be reasonably efficient (i.e. not SANE,
not 6502 code, etc).

Or nobody could have the code, and we could continue arguing til eternity about
which is faster then which.
---
Subash Shankar             Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100
voice: (612) 782 7558      US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418
shankar@src.honeywell.com  srcsip!shankar