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.