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.