🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <55@intelca.UUCP> clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) writes:
> 	The only 32K machine that has Dhrystone numbers posted to the net
> is the Sequent Balance for a single processor. 
>
> 	The results were 1250 without Reg variables and 1315 with reg
> variables.  These numbers were slower than a 6 MHz PC-AT with MicroSoft
> C 3.0. 

Far be it from me to call Mr. Purkiser biased B-).
But let's get it straight that the PC/AT benchmark being
referred to is "SMALL MODEL" and (correct me if I'm wrong)
16 bit ints.  Contrast that to 32 bit addresses and ints
in the Balance.

Note also that benchmarks figures for other NS32k systems are
available from the latest Dhrystone posting.  Here are the figures
for 80286s and NS32ks:

(Excuse the length of the benchmark results.  The PC/AT is one
 the most benchmarked systems, by virtue of its popularity
 unfortunately [That's my reasoned bias showing through].
 I felt that the full breadth of 80286 "performance" would
 not be as easily discernible without all the numbers that
 are available).

From message <1369@homxb.UUCP>:

|*----------------DHRYSTONE VERSION 1.1 RESULTS BEGIN--------------------------
|*
|* MACHINE	MICROPROCESSOR	OPERATING	COMPILER	DHRYSTONES/SEC.
|* TYPE				SYSTEM				NO REG	REGS
|* --------------------------	------------	-----------	---------------
|*
|* Compaq II	80286-8Mhz	MSDOS 3.1	MS C 3.0 	1086	1140 LM
		      ----			----------------------------
|* IBM PC/AT    80286-7.5Mhz    Venix/286 SVR2  cc              1159    1254 *15
|* Compaq II	80286-8Mhz	MSDOS 3.1	MS C 3.0 	1190	1282 MM
|* Compaq II	80286-8Mhz	MSDOS 3.1	MS C 3.0 	1351	1428
|*
|*----------------DHRYSTONE VERSION 1.0 RESULTS BEGIN--------------------------
|*
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	PCDOS 3.0	CI-C86 2.1	 666	 684
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	Xenix 3.0	cc		 684	 704 MM
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	Xenix 3.0	cc		 704	 714 LM
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	PCDOS 3.0	MS 3.0(large)	 833	 847 LM
		      ----			----------------------------
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	Xenix 3.0	cc -i		 909	 925
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	Xenix 3.0	cc		 892	 961
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	Venix/86 2.1	cc		 961	1000
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	PCDOS 3.0	b16cc 2.0	 943	1063
|* NSC ICM-3216 NSC 32016-10Mhz	UNIX SVR2	cc		1041	1084
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	PCDOS 3.0	MS 3.0(small)	1063	1086
						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|* IBM PC/AT    80286-6Mhz      Venix/286 SVR2  cc              1056    1149
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	PCDOS 3.0	Datalight 1.10	1190	1190
|* ATT PC6300+	80286-6Mhz	MSDOS 3.1	b16cc 2.0	1111	1219
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	PCDOS 3.1	Wizard 2.1	1136	1219
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	PCDOS 3.0	CI-C86 2.20M	1219	1219
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	PCDOS 3.1	Lattice 2.15	1250	1250
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-7.5Mhz	Venix/86 2.1	cc		1190	1315 *15
|* Intel 380	80286-8Mhz	Xenix R3.0up1	cc		1250	1315 *16
|* Sequent Balance 8000	NS32032-10MHz	Dynix 2.0	cc	1250	1315 N12
|* IBM PC/DSI-32 32032-10Mhz	MSDOS 3.1	GreenHills 2.14	1282	1315 C3
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-8Mhz	Venix/86 2.1	cc		1275	1380 *16
|* IBM PC/AT	80286-6Mhz	MSDOS 3.0	Microsoft 3.0	1250	1388
						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|* ATT PC6300+	80286-6Mhz	MSDOS 3.1	CI-C86 2.20M	1428	1428
|* COMPAQ/286   80286-8Mhz      Venix/286 SVR2  cc              1326    1443
|* IBM PC/AT    80286-7.5Mhz    Venix/286 SVR2  cc              1333    1449 *15
|* IBM PC/AT    80286-9Mhz      SCO Xenix V     cc              1540    1556 *18
|* NEC PC-98XA	80286-8Mhz	PCDOS 3.1	Lattice 2.15	1724	1724 @
|* IBM PC/STD	80286-8Mhz	MSDOS 3.0 	Microsoft 3.0	1724	1785 C2
|* Intel 310AP	80286-8Mhz	Xenix 3.0	cc		1893	2009

(NOTE: LM == Large Model, MM == Medium Model, all other 80286 == small model)
(Presumably the ICM-3216 and the Balance are running with an MMU,
 while on the DSI-32 an MMU is optional)

I would like to call attention to the results for LARGE MODEL code,
not nearly as impressive as when the 80286 is operating closer to
its, in more sense than one, origins.
It would be interesting to obtain figures for LARGE MODEL code
with 32 bit ints (My guess is a further deterioration in speed by
15 to 30%).
Last time I checked, the Xenix C compiler is Microsoft C version 3,
but it's not clear whether that is the compiler referred to as "cc"
in the Xenix 3.0 benchmarks.

In any case it's not known which of the above benchmarks under
the version 1.0 heading are actually 1.1 benchmarks.  The difference
in speed between the two versions is on the order of 10 to 20%.
It would seem that the former of the ^^^^ underlined figures is
for 1.1 and the latter for 1.0.

> 	In order for the 15 MHz 32332 to be faster than an 68020 (much less
> a 386) it would have be 3x faster than an 10MHz 32032.  The increased
> clock frequency accounts for 1.5x, I am hard pressed to imagine where
> the other 2x could come from.

I may find that hard to imagine.  But why would you?
If we are to believe the Dhrystone figures posted to the net,
your company did just that in going from the 8086 to the 80286, ie.
obtained a 2x speedup for the same clock frequencies.

> 	This is just the observations of a disinterested :-) person.

You may be disinterested, but I am not.  I'm tempted to resort
to personal insults here, as the amount of resources that have
been/will be spent on x86 systems does not bear thinking (or
smiling) about, but of course I'll refrain.

> --
> Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
> HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS
> {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif

			Bjorn R. Bjornsson
			Department of Computing Science
			University of Alberta
			Edmonton

			ihnp4!alberta!bjorn