🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <131@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes:
>
>Compaq 386 16mhz		5850			2380
>386 Hummingboard 16mhz		6730			2777
>386 Hummingboard 20mhz		8650			3571
>Intel 386/20			6700			----
>
>The nonprotected mode was using Microsoft C in large model.
>The protected mode used Metaware 386 High C in small (4 gigabyte segs)
>model.
>
>8650 is pretty impressive.
>
>Anyone have a capsule description as to why protected mode is so
>much faster?

1. The two compilers are different, and the dhrystones (and many other
   benchmarks) are as much a measure of compiler efficiency as they are
   a measure of processor efficiency.

2. MSC (4.0, at least) is not capable of taking advantage of '386 advanced
   characteristics, and, when compiling large model code, is know to produce
   very slow code.  Not, perhaps, any slower than anyone else's large model
   8086 and/or 80286 code, but certainly slower than small model.  You don't
   indicate (or they don't) what compiler flags were used, either.  Was it
   compiling 80286 code?  8086 code?  Stack checks enabled?  etc., etc.
   Show me some benchmarks created using the same compiler and the same
   compilation flags, and then maybe some reasonable theories can result.


-- 
----------------
                 "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness
Mike Farren      that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..."
hoptoad!farren       Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"