Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 80386 vs. 68030 Message-ID: <46500034@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 5 Dec 88 14:41:00 GMT References: <18266@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Lines: 21 Nf-ID: #R:shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU:18266:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:46500034:000:1000 Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald Dec 5 08:41:00 1988 In article <5375@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >Going all out, I'd expect a 68020 to be slower than an 80386 system, a >68030 to be faster. Okay, I know that this has been said before. But I get so sick of this I'll say it again: Offhand, I expect that things other than the chip will be of more import comparing those three chips. Like compilers. Like memory organization. I haven't personally benchmarked any 680x0 systems other than Macs, which are by any measure slow. But based on my tests of 386 machines AND COMPILERS and published comparisons, I'd call it a dead heat. If you're going to compare compiled programs (as opposed to assembled) you should get a compiler for each system designed by people WHO HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN MAKING THEIR SYSTEM LOOK GOOD. Gnu C is not a fair test. (All this was done due to my suffering "workstation envy" until I got a 32 bit 80386 compiler. Total cure.) Sorry to fill up the august halls of comp.arch with such drivel.