Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uicsl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!hr
From: hr@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.16k
Subject: Re: Re: 32032 UNIX
Message-ID: <5500001@uicsl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 12:29:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uicsl.5500001
Posted: Fri Feb  8 12:29:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 06:32:40 EST
References: <320@terak.UUCP>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:terak:-32000:uicsl:5500001:000:1041
Nf-From: uicsl!hr    Feb  8 11:29:00 1985


RE:
	"Can some one out there shed some light on why a 32016, runs faster
	than a 750, in programs that access memory (using pointers or matrix
	type operations.)"

This might be relevant, or it might not:
One must take into consideration the software used. A friend and I have
recently run the Dr. DOBBS floating point benchmark on a number of machines.
Surprisingly, his S100/286, MSDOS system (with 80287) was within 10% of our
VAX 11/780, BSD 4.2 system. He used the new DRI FORTRAN, I used f77 (C
produced similar results).

I recently tried the same program on a 780 running VMS. The VMS machine
ran the program 4 times faster (8 times faster if the single precision
times are used)!

I suspect that we wound up measuring not so much the machines as their
libraries. Presumably, your memory intensive programs would be less
susceptable to this though.

Now if I could just find a 68k or 32016 system with that speed in
the $5000 range, I'd have something to look forward to.



						harold ravlin
					{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uicsl!hr