🚀 go-pugleaf

fineberg@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel A. Fineberg) writes:
: In article <1993Jan20.211032.11929@hubcap.clemson.edu>, richard@meiko.com (Richard Cownie) writes:
: |> This seems to imply a figure of over 4MFLOPS per T800.  Last time
: |> I programmed one, it was a real struggle to achieve over 1MFLOPS
: |> even for inner loops of vector routines.  Not that 4MFLOPS is
: |> necessarily a lie, you might manage it if you're adding two 32-bit
: |> zeros (and never storing the result).  But it's certainly stretching
: |> the truth a long way: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
: |> 
: |> -- 
: |> Richard Cownie (a.k.a. Tich), Meiko Scientific Corp 
: |> email: richard@meiko.com
: |> phone: 617-890-7676
: |> fax:   617-890-5042       
: |> 
: Its certainly no less realistic than those for the i860.
: 
: Sam

I have to disagree with you there.  I know of *some* applications where
the i860 can achieve a good fraction of claimed peak speed, e.g. on
a double-precision matrix multiply you can do over 35MFLOPS, against
a peak rate claimed as 40MFLOPS (or sometimes 60MFLOPS, because you can do
2 adds for each multiply).  In any case, it's well over 50% of peak.

If a T800 transputer can achieve 50% of 4.4MFLOPS on a matrix multiply,
or indeed *anything* useful, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Performance on big compiled Fortran programs is another kettle of fish,
and here I'd agree that peak performance figures are not much help.
-- 
Richard Cownie (a.k.a. Tich), Meiko Scientific Corp 
email: richard@meiko.com
phone: 617-890-7676
fax:   617-890-5042