This is C-benchmarks-for-NeXT-040 in view mode; [Up]
Date: Sun 23-Apr-1991 04:48:44 From: guppy@athena.mit.edu (Harold Youngren) Subject: C benchmarks for NeXT 040 I recently did a few C benchmarks on our lab systems comparing them to my NeXT slab. The benchmark is the Plum-Hall C benchmark, downloaded from uunet.uu.net in comp.sources.xxx somewhere. The benchmark was modified slightly to increase the number of iterations for more accurate timing on our DEC systems (this has no effect on statistics except to make timing less sensitive). Plum-Hall C benchmarks (obtained from uunet ftp) benchmarks timed for 10000 iterations for consistency numbers refer to time/loop derived by total time/ #loops (i.e. smaller times mean faster...) register auto auto int function auto int short long multiply call+ret double NEXT 040 (no -O) 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.97 0.59 0.50 NEXT 040 (-O) 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.95 0.62 0.31 Sparc 1+ (no -O) 0.16 0.29 0.29 2.75 0.32 0.60 Sparc 1+ (-O) 0.26 0.19 0.14 2.63 0.32 0.32 DEC 3100 (MIPS) (no -O) 0.14 0.40 0.18 0.92 0.27 0.31 DEC 3100 (MIPS) (-O) 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.88 0.27 0.18 DEC 5000 (MIPS) (no -O) 0.0941 0.16 0.11 0.59 0.18 0.14 DEC 5000 (MIPS) (-O) 0.0859 0.12 0.0859 0.59 0.18 0.12 Sparc 1+ is a Sun4 (?) For comparison purposes, the Plum-Hall benchmark came with this table of other timings... Machine/compiler register auto auto int func auto int short long multiply call dbl AT&T 3B2/05 (-O) 1.36 3.87 2.62 15.4 7.7 22.5 AT&T 3B2/05 (no -O) 1.78 4.66 2.75 16.2 9.3 22.5 AT&T 3B2/400 (-O) 1.09 1.36 1.10 16.2 10.0(?) 91.4 AT&T 3B2/400 (no -O) 1.14 2.61 2.36 17.3 11.3 91.1 AT&T 6386/375 (no -O) 0.61 1.39 1.23 3.85 5.62 6.77 AT&T 6386/375 (-O) 0.52 1.17 0.54 3.68 5.78 7.68 Apollo DN330 (-O) 1.36 .78 1.36 10.17 3.57 Apollo DN330 (no -O) 1.54 1.28 1.54 11.30 3.64 Apollo DN580 (-O) 1.03 .59 1.03 7.67 2.72 Apollo DN580 (no -O) 1.18 .97 1.18 8.48 2.77 Apollo DN660 (_O) 5.88 1.24 5.88 21.86 4.26 Apollo DN660 (no -O) 5.93 1.52 5.93 21.93 4.29 Masscomp 5500 3.18 2.7 4.9 30.8 7.3 Masscomp 5600 (-O) .45 .61 .46 2.83 1.04 Masscomp 5600 (no -O) .46 .78 .64 2.99 1.76 PC/8088 (InstantC) 25.8 25.8 82.0 74.2 152. PC/8088 (WSL 3.1 lg) 6.18 10.4 66.5 31.8 28.8 Pyramid 90X (-O) .85 1.04 .86 3.64 1.9 2.37 Pyramid 90X (no -O) .86 1.01 .86 3.65 1.8 2.34 Sequent (-O) 1.39 2.99 2.53 9.90 9.3 Sequent (no -O) 1.50 3.25 2.83 9.95 13.2 Sun 3/260HM (-O) .31 .48 .47 1.98 1.16 Sun 3/260HM (no -O) .36 .58 .57 1.99 1.62 Sun 3/75M (-O) .47 .77 .76 3.00 2.12 Sun 3/75M (no -O) .53 .95 .94 3.01 2.73 Sun 3/75M(4.2, -O) .50 .81 .83 2.85 1.5 20.7 Sun 3/75M(4.2, no -O) .54 1.00 1.01 2.97 2.7 21.1 Sun 3/75M(VM, -O) .46 .77 .75 2.96 2.1 20.8 Sun 3/75M(VM, no -O) .52 .96 .93 2.97 2.7 21.1 VAX 11/730 (-O) 4.00 9.80 6.20 16.2 42.8 12.4 VAX 11/730 (no -O) 4.73 10.2 7.45 16.57 51.5 17.0 VAX 11/780 (-O) 1.21 2.43 1.67 2.76 15.04 2.95 VAX 11/780 (BSD 4.2) 1.38 2.42 1.96 2.92 17.2 VAX 11/780 (UNIX 5.2) 1.24 2.48 1.79 2.72 15.7 3.89 VAX 11/780 (no -O) 1.29 2.51 1.85 2.70 16.7 3.89 VAX 11/785 (-O) .93 1.85 1.32 5.00 13.9 47.5 VAX 11/785 (no -O) 1.01 1.96 1.44 5.08 14.2 5.42 VAX 8650(UNIX -O) .236 .484 .298 .589 2.63 .578 VAX 8650(UNIX no -O) .258 .482 .316 .574 3.06 .791 VAX 8650(Ultrix -O) .23 .40 .29 .53 2.4 .56 VAX 8650(Ultrix no -O) .26 .41 .34 .56 2.8 .77 You will note that the new crop of RISC and RISCy/CISC machines are all quite fast. However, the floating point performance of the 040 with current system software, although similar to the SPARC, does not match even DEC's slowest MIPS workstation. Actually the SPARC does not have a very good C compiler so this comparison puts them in a worse light than, say a fortran benchmark where the optimized SPARC f77 compiler checks in with 2.1 Mflops on the LINPACK vs the NeXT with 1.5 (Absoft f77) or 1.8 (f2c/cc) on the 040. Hey, NeXT, when do we get 040 optimized system software?. Hal Youngren guppy@henry.mit.edu MIT Aero/Astro CFDL
These are the contents of the former NiCE NeXT User Group NeXTSTEP/OpenStep software archive, currently hosted by Marcel Waldvogel and Netfuture.ch.