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?