Xref: utzoo comp.arch:7444 comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt:200
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!pcrat!rick
From: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt
Subject: Re: Why the original RT seemed/was slow (was ...)
Message-ID: <628@pcrat.UUCP>
Date: 3 Dec 88 05:02:50 GMT
References: <5046@polya.Stanford.EDU> <1287@auschs.UUCP> <1309@auschs.UUCP> <3736@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Organization: PC Research, Inc., Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 27

In article <3736@pt.cs.cmu.edu> butcher@g.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Lawrence Butcher) writes:
>Mr. Sauer's benchmark people should be aware that the current version of the
>Dhrystone benchmark is version 2.0.  Version 1.1 numbers are not timely.
>
>My measured Dhrystone numbers (Dhry 2.0) are (roughly):
>
>2191 for the (RT, ROMP, 6150, Model 025, at 6 MHz) using mc
>3176 for the 6152 using mc
>3551 for the (APC, 6151, 125, at 10 MHz) using pcc
>4474 for the (APC, 6151, 125 at 10 MHz) using mc

Looking back on the last list of 1.1 results I put together,
it seems pretty clear the Sauer's "Advanced C" numbers
are running with all possible optimization turned on.
Which makes them pretty much useless as an indication
of anything other than that the optimizer people have been
at work. 

Dhrystone 2.1 is not as easily fooled by optimizers.  How
about posting some 2.1 numbers for the record?


-- 
Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2
PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2
uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/.    |submission forms.
jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp