Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:911 comp.unix.questions:8214 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!husc6!endor!reiter From: reiter@endor.harvard.edu (Ehud Reiter) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Sun 3 vs uVAXII floating point speed.... Message-ID: <4953@husc6.harvard.edu> Date: 14 Jul 88 16:29:36 GMT References: <25065@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Reply-To: reiter@harvard.UUCP (Ehud Reiter) Distribution: na Organization: Aiken Computation Lab Harvard, Cambridge, MA Lines: 35 In article <25065@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> ao@cevax.berkeley.edu (Akin Ozselcuk) writes: >Sun 3 seems very impressive in this respect BUT CAN WE SAY THAT >Sun 3 IS 3 TIMES FASTER IN FLOATING POINT CALCULATIONS THAN uVAX The following data is from J. Dongarra, "Performance of Various Computers Using Standard Linear Equation Software in a Fortran Environment", COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE NEWS, vol16, no 1 (March 1988): (from Table 1 - full (i.e. double) precision, no assembly subroutines) Machine Mflops Sun 4/260 1.1 Sun 3/260 with FPA .46 uVAX 3200 (VMS) .41 Sun 3/160 with FPA .40 uVAX II (VMS) .13 Sun 3/260 with 68881 .11 Sun 3/160 with 68881 .10 Sun 3/50 with 68881 .087 uVAX II (Ultrix) .082 (and, just for fun) CRAY X-MP-4 480 (with vector unrolling, assembly subroutines) Alliant FX/8 27 (with vector unrolling, assembly subroutines) uVAX II (VMS) .16 (with assembly subroutines) IBM PC/AT with 80287 .012 (using PROFORT 1.0 compiler) Readers can draw their own interpretations. Note that while I think Dongarra's LINPACK is one of the most honest benchmarks around (and far better than, say, Dhrystone), it, like all benchmarks, still needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Ehud Reiter reiter@harvard (ARPA,BITNET,UUCP) reiter@harvard.harvard.EDU (new ARPA)