Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #1233Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
From: Jim Lowe
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:33
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:33
51 lines
2882 bytes
2882 bytes
In article <BzF5MF.2Lv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
|> In article <1gdipoINN749@rave.larc.nasa.gov> w.l.vaughn@LaRC.NASA.GOV (Wallace L. Vaughn) write
|> >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
|>
|> Hmmmm.
|>
|> Most 386 motherboards above 25 MHz have a built-in SRAM cache
|> these days. Even the bargain basement jobs.
I'd say Motorola's 680x0 series is faster than Intel's 80x86 of the same
generation, AT THE SAME CLOCK SPEED. The reason Intel's tend to be substantially
faster in reality is that Intel always offers them at a higher clock speed than
Motorola has yet achieved. e.g., the 33MHz 486 has been on the market for 2 years
or so, while the 33MHz 68040, I believe, just came out within the last two
months. (at least, the first Quadra based on it was released then).
Running a fast chip without a cache cripples it with so many wait states that it
loses its clock speed advantage entirely. The original XT didn't need a cache
because it ran at 4.77 MHz and used 210 ns DRAMs. (at 4.77 million clocks/sec.,
each clock lasts exactly 210 ns). Think about it; clock speeds have gone up 10
times, while memory speeds have barely gone up 3 times. Trying to compare two
fast chips, one of which has a cache, and one of which doesn't, is completely
meaningless. Of COURSE the one with the cache will win by an enormous margin. As
is pointed out above, for months or years now, virtually all 386 systems have
been offered with cache.
--
*********************************************************************
----- ----- -- -- | -----
| | | \ / | | |
| | | - | -----
| | | | |
-- --- - - -----
GRANDIOSE
and
ANNOYING
.signature file.
jim lowe, cs141046@cs.brown.edu
ma106071@cs.brown.edu
**********************************************************************
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec17.223358.12395@cs.brown.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!ma106071References:
<torrie.724148637@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> <1gdipoINN749@rave.larc.nasa.gov> <BzF5MF.2Lv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!ma106071 From: ma106071@cs.brown.edu (Jim Lowe) Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks Message-ID: <1992Dec17.223358.12395@cs.brown.edu> Sender: news@cs.brown.edu Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept. References: <torrie.724148637@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> <1gdipoINN749@rave.larc.nasa.gov> <BzF5MF.2Lv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:33:58 GMT Lines: 51