🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.powerpc
Article #3550

Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???

#3550
From: Gregory L Hansen
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 17:08
36 lines
2593 bytes
In article <4jhq8r$nt2@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
David T. Wang <veakblad@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:

>I didn't want to say anything, because I knew from just looking at the 
>code how silly it was. I think that it was hashed out here a while back
>that PPC601's didn't support transedentals (sine, cosines) via hardware,
>while pentiums did, so any simplified benchmark like the one given by
>Mr Hansen will show the Pentium "better" than a PPC chip.  I think that
>it's not even close to a decent benchmark, all it shows you is that if
>you happen to be writing your own code, and you use a bunch of sines and 
>cosines all the time, you'd be better off with a Pentium, that's about it.

Thank you for that explanation.  I admit I was a little confused by the 
results, but what could I do but show what I'd found?  I missed the 
hashing of PPC math because there's so darn much traffic here I only read 
it sporadically.  It seems kind of obtuse to leave out transcendals since 
almost anything that uses floating-point math is going to start slinging 
them around.  How about the PPC604?

>Ofcourse Mr Hansen could return with a new program which completely eliminates
>sine and cosine, but he could then carefully pick some operations whose
>code implementation uses instructions which are faster on the PPC601
>than a Pentium.  And then if someone else had the energy or drive to do it,
>just come back with a different "benchmark" which could favor the Pentium.
>This is why benchmarking is a difficult art.

Then perhaps we can have "with transcendentals" and "without 
transcendentals" catagories.  The reason I proposed the UseMarks is so 
our readers can remove the ambiguities.  When they can examine the 
benchmarks, debate them, and propose their own, hopefully we can get some 
numbers that everyone's happy with.  Then the only argument will be 
interpreting them ("601 does floating point faster!"  "So what?  It 
can't find a sine.") rather than the numbers themselves.

Maybe needless to say, I hope some more qualified persons can help with 
the project.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <4jp2i8$f0r@nuke.csu.net>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!newshub.csu.net!ghansen
References: <4jhq8r$nt2@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!newshub.csu.net!ghansen
From: ghansen@isc.sjsu.edu (Gregory L Hansen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???
Date: 1 Apr 1996 17:08:24 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University, San Jose, California
Message-ID: <4jp2i8$f0r@nuke.csu.net>
References: <4jhq8r$nt2@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: athens.sjsu.edu