Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #1173Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
From: Wallace L. Vaughn
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:41
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:41
61 lines
3539 bytes
3539 bytes
> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>> Macintosh IICi, built-in Apple video, 680x480(yuck)x256 colors.
>> 32 bit addressing turned on, VRAM on, 16 Meg available, disk
>> cache 384K.
>>Software: Excel 3 (I will try it with Excel 4 in the next couple days).
Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? responds
> I tried it with Excel 4.0 on the Mac, which is generally slower than
>Excel 3.0 in my experience.
>>The test: Put an integer into cell A1. Cells B1 -> Z1 are cell to the left
>> + 1. Cells A2 -> Z1000 are cell above +1. See how long it takes
>> to recalc the sheet after changing value of A1.
>>Results: Under Windows recalc took 3.3 seconds.
>>On the Mac, 7.5 seconds.
> 4.1 seconds on my IIci.
I tried it using excel 3 on a IIci, cache card, two screens run in 8
bit(640x480) and 4 bit (15" stardard number of pixels) modes with video cards
(non-accelerated), system 7.01+, 20 meg ram, 3meg excel partition.
recalc took 2.5 secs (hand held, so, say give or take 0.2 seconds), looks
like Evan may be correct 4.0 may be a little slower than 3.0. Looks like
Iskandar Taib is suffering from the onboard video slow down on the IIci or
maby the lack of a cache card.
>> I'll try this and other benchmarks on different machines. Don't
>> have a Quadra to try though.
> I do though. 1.2 seconds for the same test on a 25MHz 68040 Quadra.
I have previously run a simular test using a more complex calculation wich is
to messy to state clearly here but it involved multiplications, additions,
divisions, sins, cosins, averages, standard deviations, roots, powers etc.,
more or less at random, (care was taken to use absoulte values in some places
to eliminate (divide by zeros, negative roots) etc.) all based on other cell
results so that changing cell 1A would cause a complete recalc as in the
above exapmle. I also measured the time to scroll the 1000 row spread sheet.
Results as follows
Mac II, 16mHz, system 7.01+, 8bit 640 x 480 video, 8 meg ram
Mac IIci, 25mHz, see above
386dx, 33mhz system, windows, 3.0, 640x480 svga screen, no cache. 8meg RAM
calc.(sec) scroll(min:sec)
Mac II 35.3 2:16.2
Mac IIci 15.3 1:31.2
Mac IIci/cache off 19.2 1:44.7
386dx 22.5 2:25.3
Sorry about lack of spec for the 386 system, but I couldn't find the manuals
for it, or the purchase orders, but its was a typical clone package with a 1
meg video card and 14" hi-res monitor, AT style slots. The 386 on this calc
seem to be in line with the Mac IIci/cache off, however the scroll
performance was fairly slow.
just my $0.02, this was my playing and doesn't reflect any official position
or recommendation by NASA or the US Government.
Wally
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1gdipoINN749@rave.larc.nasa.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.larc.nasa.gov!newsReferences:
<torrie.724148637@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!news.larc.nasa.gov!news From: w.l.vaughn@LaRC.NASA.GOV (Wallace L. Vaughn) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks Date: 12 Dec 1992 20:41:28 GMT Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Lines: 64 Distribution: world Message-ID: <1gdipoINN749@rave.larc.nasa.gov> References: <torrie.724148637@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> Reply-To: w.l.vaughn@LaRC.NASA.GOV (Wallace L. Vaughn) NNTP-Posting-Host: b1205amac8.larc.nasa.gov