Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:3527 comp.unix.xenix:10571
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: BENCHMARKS (Byte's) 368 vs 486 comp.
Message-ID: <18136@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 14 Mar 90 05:45:47 GMT
References: <1990Mar8.175245.2527@pcrat.uucp> <1025@fiver.UUCP> <1990Mar11.223447.5645@rand.org>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service
Lines: 18

In article <1990Mar11.223447.5645@rand.org> edhall@ives.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>These still seem low.  On a no-name, UNcached, UNinterleaved 25MHz 386
>I get a consistant 7085 with registers, 6825 without (+/- 15 or so).
>This is with ISC 2.01 and pcc.

I agree.  At the 1988 USENIX Winter conference in Dallas [ I think that
is the right year - it's the one I went to in Dallas ;-) ] there was a
20 or 25 MHz Compaq using the Greenhill's C compiler producing about 9KDhry.

The Greenhills compilers have always impressed me and I do plainly recall
that this particular Compaq was running about 2KDhry faster than what
everyone else was showing.

Does anyone remember that booth?  I don't remember whether it was Compaq
peddling their wares or whether it was Greenhills.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org