At 12:03 PM 1999/10/12 -0400, Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>At 12:54 PM 10/12/99 +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
>>"John R Pierce" wrote:
>>
>> > a year on one of these [a vax] wouldn't equal one day on a pentium-II.
>>
>>Probably a bit generous there even, given that older vaxen wouldn't
>>have pipelined FPU's so you might get one result every 10 (or perhaps
>>even 100) clocks, as opposed to one result almost every clock on modern
>>hardware.
>
>In his book "Programming Pearls", Jon Bentley gives the figure of 570
>seconds for sorting 10,000 integers on a VAX-11/750. My PII-300 does it
>1160 times faster and my C-400 is 1780 times faster. But that is comparing
>working with integers instead of FP.
Hmm, a vax3900 is definitely not slower than a 780. The original Vax
was the 780, followed by the slightly slower 750, both designed in the 1970's.
A VS2000 was a tiny, almost shoebox size vax, and those were about 780 speed.
A VS3100-38 (circa 1990) was about 4 x a 780; a VS4000-60 was about 12 times;
I think a 4000-90 was about 30 times.
My recollection was that for multiple precision programs in integer in C,
a VS3100-38 was about half the speed of an Intel 386-33 with cache, and
a VS4000-60 was about the equal of a 486-33.
What sort algorithm are those figures for? In what programming language?
Which compiler?
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Then there are benchmarks...
Ken
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
