🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <315B33FD.41C6@aloss.cims.nyu.edu>, Tetsuji Ueda <ueda@aloss.cims.nyu.edu> writes:

|> > |> There's an addendum to the above-mentioned article, in both
|> > |> December '95 and February '96 issue of Byte.  They discuss a
|> > |> bug (more of a non-optimal malloc library routine) which
|> > |> caused poor ByteMark performance to be given for the Intel
|> > |> machines.  There are revised figures available in the latter
|> > |> article showing better performance for the P6.

|> > Nice try.  Here are the corrected figures:

|> > Let's talk actual systems, not estimated processor benchmarks.
|> > January 1996 Byte, Page 140 Graph "Raw Performance: The VIS-less Ultra
|> > I".  Sorted in order of integer performance:
|> > ----------------------------------------
|> > DeskStation Raptor 3 266 MHz Aplha 21164:                3.75, 4.49
|> > IBM Personal Computer Power Series 850, 133 MHz PPC 604: 2.90, 2.92
|> > Sun Ultra I Creator 3D Model 170 167 MHz UltraSparc:     2.18, 1.54
|> > Intel Reference System, 150 MHz Pentium Pro:             2.10, 2.60
|> > Netpower Fastseries MP 200 MHz Mips R4400:               2.03, 2.08

|> > PPC 604 is faster than Pentium Pro, even though the PPro is running at
|> > a higher clock speed.

|> I apologize for the misunderstanding, what I said wasn't very clearly
|> stated.  The article concerning the BYTEMark bug is at:

|> http://www.byte.com/art/9512/sec4/art2.htm

Which was published in December of 1995.  Do you think that the same
magazine would run the erroneous November 1995 numbers a month after
they published their correction?  Or the corrected numbers?

|> I pointed out this reference since the November 95 article seems to be
|> passed around as gospel, quite often without mention of the bug.

I clearly identify the text above as taken from the January 1996
Byte.  Which was published a month after the corrections were
announced. 

|> Comparative differences between the 133MHz PPC and the 150MHz P6 isn't
|> as stark with the corrected BYTEMark benchmarks.

|> I did want to point out that I (IMHO) disagree with people posting
|> benchmark references without being clear about the systems (cpu, bus,
|> cache, memory, core logic, etc) and the compilers (optimization,
|> library, etc.) which are used. For instance, one interesting page to
|> look at is

Granted, Byte did not publish which compiler was used for the
benchmarks I quoted.  The systems were specified, and one could go to
the manufacturers for the rest of the specs.

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   cats@erinet.com