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