🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <dke-2803961851210001@adnline290.adnc.com> dke@adnc.com (David K. Every) writes:
>In article <4jf32c$qm6@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave
>Glue) wrote:
>
>> PPC is faster running Bytemarks. That is all that it shows.  Wow,
>> looking at SpecMarks, the Pro is faster, guess it's the faster
>> processor then.
>
>OK.. but Apple and others have shown that PowerMacs are faster than P5's
>by a gawd awful amount - up to 3 times at the same clock rate (fp
>intensive stuff)... now according to Intels OWN numbers, the P6 is only
>50%+ faster at the same clock rate (at least the ones I saw)... so that
>would make it what?!?! A heck of a lot slower in the real world than a
>604?!?!
>
>Which seems to be the case I've seen... (only based on the P5's). Intel
>claimed it was as good as the 601... it was EATEN ALIVE. We did some
>comparisons and the 66mhz 601 was beating the 120mhz P5 in processor or
>floating point intesive stuff. So now they claim the P6 is better still...
>and I'm supposed to beleive what? That THIS TIME they mean it... that they
>didn't lie (market creatively) like they always do?!?!  I look at the
>performance difference on my 150mhz 604 (as compared to a 66mhz 601) and
>think, there is NO WAY that Intel made the P6 3 TIMES faster (minimum)
>than the P5... which is what they would have had to have done.
>-- 

Ya know, I WAS going to mail this post back seperate, but I guess I'll do it 
HERE!  the P5 was "EATEN ALIVE" by the 601, HUH?  Look at this, and tell me how
we are mistaken!

#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
 
void main(void)
{
	double	sum, i;
	
	sum = 0;
	for(i=1;i<10000000;i++)
	{
		sum = sum + sqrt(sin(i/4.2)*sin(i/4.2) + log(i));
	}
	printf("total: %f", sum);
}
/*** end ***/
/*  
And the result is:
  
Hansen Floating-Point
Machine   OS      Processor   Raw  Normalized  Relative  Compiler  
--------  ------  ----------  ---  ----------  --------  --------
Power100  Sys7.5  PPC601/100  82s     82s          1     1,2
==================================================================
1: CodeWarrior 8
2: optimized for speed

Hansen Floating-Point
Machine   OS      Processor   Raw  Normalized  Relative  Compiler  
--------  ------  ----------  ---  ----------  --------  --------
TRITON    lin-1.3.78  P5/100  66s     66s          1.24  GNU 2.7.2
==================================================================
NOT optimized!!!!!

Hansen Floating-Point
Machine   OS      Processor   Raw  Normalized  Relative  Compiler  
--------  ------  ----------  ---  ----------  --------  --------
TRITON    lin-1.3.78  P5/100  44s     44s          1.86  GNU 2.7.2
==================================================================
-O2 optimizing     

Hansen Floating-Point
Machine   OS      Processor   Raw  Normalized  Relative  Compiler  
--------  ------  ----------  ---  ----------  --------  --------
TRITON    lin-1.3.78  P5/100  36s     36s          2.28  GNU 2.7.2
==================================================================
-ffast-math -O2 optimizing     

NOTE: fast-math is not ieee compliant, and the total is off by .000002
HEY, that's less of an error than the FDIV problem! 

*/

Please note, that the first measurement was from GREGORY HANSON, a PPC user!
The other ones were by ME on a LINUX 1-3.78 system that had SEVERAL processes
running!  HE listed his system as a PPC601/100 which I ASSUME is a 601 Power
PC chip CPU running at 100MHZ.  GRANTED, my system has 256K PB cache, but 
This benchmark is HEAVILY FPU intensive, and should be a good indicator of FPU
performance.  On an apples to apples comparison(approx = attempts at optimizing)
the P5/100 was 86% FASTER!!!!!! 

Either HANSEN was mistaking, I misinterpreted his info, or you have the
benchmarks BACKWARDS!  This test has a set number of iterations, and so 
lower numbers are BETTER, as they indicate it took less time to complete.

Steve

BTW EACH loop has:

3 adds
2 divides
1 multiply
4 transcendentals

ALL are double precision!