Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Dhrystone Message-ID: <8808150554.AA14630@cory.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 15 Aug 88 05:54:28 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 19 >In article <583@faui44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mlelstv@faui44.UUCP (Michael van Elst (kdebugger)) writes: >>I would like to tell you that this Dhrystone results >>depend much on the abilty of Lattice to use inline code >>for string functions. > >Manx 3.6 offers inline string function handling. > >-scott This is why such benchmarks are ludicrous, when people fine-tune the benchmark and/or compiler to make the benchmark look better. I won't even talk about what Intel did. Well, maybe I will. They took IBM's MIPS benchmark and gave themselves a MIPS rating timing NOP's. ... IBM defines MIPS as testing *all* the instructions of a processor with the estimated percent-usage for those instructions. Suddenly, everybody's brother's processor was doing better than an IBM mainframe! -Matt