Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas
From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Recommendations needed about A2500/30 as research workstation
Message-ID: <22555@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 2 Mar 90 02:47:05 GMT
References: <6623@cps3xx.UUCP> <2017@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM> <22494@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <50518@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 46

In article <50518@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> jac@muslix.llnl.gov.UUCP (James Crotinger) writes:
>In article <22494@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes:
>>The '030' is, of course, a faster chip than an equivalently clocked '386.
>>The '486' is, of course, faster yet.
>>David Navas                                   navas@cory.berkeley.edu
>
>   This seems to be a widespread myth among Motorola product users.
>MIPS magazine (now Personal Workstations) has tested a wide variety of
>'386 machines and a few '030 machines, and the '386 machines always
>come out slightly on top (and in computing power/$ they come out way
>on top (of course MIPS has never tested an A2500/30)). 

Okay, I will :)
>
>   However, if Motorola's info is accurate, the '040 is faster than an
>equivalently clocked '486.

If Motorola's info is accurate, the 68030 beats the 80386 [as far as I know]
From May 1989 Sentry:

	Amiga2000 with A3001 -- Dhrystones/sec = 7273   [25Mhz]
	Compaq 386           -- Dhrystones/sec = 5705   [20MHz]
	Correcting for speed difference, that's  7173

The June 1988 of BYTE says they tested 386 machines anywhere from 1724--9436
Dhrystones/sec.  Obviously this is compiler sensitive testing!

And if you are interested in more Apples/Oranges testing:
	Turbo-Amiga [68020 @ 14.32MHz] runs the Sieve on a 40000byte array in
			2.32 seconds.
	The Amiga does it in 11.5 seconds
	The IBM AT        in 99.71 seconds!!!  [Their 32K limit problems...]

Even More!::  Turbo-Amiga at 14MHz beats up on Macs:

	Slowest quote of Turbo-Amiga on Sieve:  14.7  [compiled Lattice, long ints]
	Mac SE/prodigy @ 16MHz			14.8
	Mac II	       @ 15.67MHz               16.7  [all in seconds, folks...]

Disclaimer: I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing: all I know is that some
people were asking for numbers.  This is by no means a conclusive end to the
on-going argument of Intel/Motorola debate.


David Navas                                   navas@cory.berkeley.edu
"Think you can, think you can't -- either way it's true."  Henry Ford