🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jfmka$c9j@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, veakblad@Glue.umd.edu
(David T. Wang) wrote:

] 
] : 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.
] 
] The above are Bytemark scores.  Try again when either....
] 
] 1) Bytemarks become a commercial application.
] 
] 2) You or Joe Ragosta find an app that runs faster on a PPC604 box than
] a P6 box.  Then you may try to make that assertion again.
] 

Mathematica?

As far as benchmarks go, all interested parties should check out the HINT
benchmarks homepage:

http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/HINT/

I think HINT goes a long way towards removing a lot of biases from many
benchmarks since the HINT evaluates the system as the problem scales from
small to large, showing clearly the effect of caches, external bus speed,
etc.  Give it a look-see.

Cheers,

Mel Martinez
The Johns Hopkins University
Dept. of Physics
mem@jhu.edu