Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!stolaf!mike
From: mike@stolaf.UUCP (Mike Haertel)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80386 vs. 68030
Keywords: 680x0 wins
Message-ID: <788@stolaf.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 88 01:48:18 GMT
References: <18266@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <5375@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: mike@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN
Lines: 23

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.

I disagree.  Working for the GNU project this summer I had an opportunity
to use various 386 and '020 machines and, taking differences of clock
speed, etc. into account I had the impression that the '020 machines
were faster.  I was using the same compiler (gcc) on both architectures.
I believe the main reason the '020 won was simply that it had more
registers available for temporary values for the optimizer.  Eight
registers (as in the 386) is clearly insufficient, and in fact 16 (as in
the '020) is probably not enough.  Maybe 32 would be right?

#if hearsay_evidence_were_admissible_in_court
I vaguely recall hearing of some PC type magazine (not Byte, which
always says the 386 is faster, but maybe Dr. Dobbs?) running various
benchmarks and, however reluctantly, concluding that the '020 was
faster.  Disclaimer: I personally have read no such article, someone
just told me about it.  I don't remember who either.
#endif
-- 
Mike Haertel					mike@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
			In Hell they run VMS.