Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site minster.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!mcvax!ukc!reading!minster!nigel
From: nigel@minster.UUCP (nigel)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: In the cause of Science .....
Message-ID: <598@minster.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Nov-85 10:03:12 EST
Article-I.D.: minster.598
Posted: Mon Nov 11 10:03:12 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 07:47:39 EST
References: <663@ecsvax.UUCP> <589@minster.UUCP> <398@aum.UUCP>
Reply-To: nigel@minster.UUCP (nigel)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of York, England
Lines: 30
Xpath: reading onion.cs

In article <398@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes:
...
>Could we have a second comfirmation from another ST user this sounds
>amazing! Also could we find out more details about the 1092 drystone run?
...

Sorry - I should have given more details, but then again so should the
original posting! What is important is whether 16 or 32 bit arithmetic
is used, and it is not clear (i.e. I don't know) what the Lattice C
compiler uses on the Amiga. The following table benchmarks the
ISV development kit (i.e. the DR C compiler), with structure assignment,
but no enums.

		regs	noregs

16 bit		1092	1070
32 bit		710	????

The 32 bit figure was arrived at by changing all integer references to
long in the benchmark. Timing was done using the system ticker, and is
therefore accurate and repeatable. In addition, the 1092 figure drops to
the region of 850 if the cursor is displayed and continuously tracked
around the screen during the test. I'm sure other people can confirm
these numbers.

Similar tests and details of the Amiga test would be very interesting,
as even if the Amiga was using 32 bit arithmetic, 450 d/s (or as rumoured
around 300 for the Hippo compiler) does not compare well. If, as a recent
posting indicated, there would have been no coprocessor contention during
the published test, what's going on?