home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!burst.demon.co.uk
- From: Lee@burst.demon.co.uk (Lee Huggett)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: Speed: 68040 vs. 68060
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 18:07:07 GMT
- Message-ID: <1222.6625T90T18@burst.demon.co.uk>
- References: <4foi00$60t@gondor.sdsu.edu> <3125E74D.3390@gih.no>
- <792.6622T806T2315@burst.demon.co.uk> <38232529@kone.fipnet.fi>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: burst.demon.co.uk
- X-NNTP-Posting-Host: burst.demon.co.uk
- X-Newsreader: THOR 2.22 (Amiga;TCP/IP) *UNREGISTERED*
-
- > Full bullshit. I complied a simple real-world test,
- > and it was about 2x fast as on my 040/40 Warp Engine,
- > and about a same on P90.
-
- Hey Hey Hey don't start getting fucking nasty...
-
- What simple real world test??
-
- Mail it to me and I'll give it a try...
-
-
- > SysInfo is crap, that 40MIPS is really wrong. My 040/40
- > does that.
-
- I was mearly stating a fact Sysinfo does give 40 MIPS for an '060
-
- and seing as AIBB doesn't recognise the '060 to the point of not working at
- all, we don't really have a lot to work with.
-
- I know the '060 is faster the 040/40 (I would have bought one of those
- otherwise) but I think it is unlikely that you would get 81 MIPS out of it at
- a sustained rate
-
-
- > Most of the SAS/C compiled code does not have be specially
- > 68060 optimized, in a real world situation the 060 is
- > usually able to run 2 instructions at the same time.
-
- If code is optimised for an '060 is has more chance of running 2 or more
- instructions at once then unoptimised code.
-
-
- Lee
-
- ****************************************
- * Damn Can't think of a witty sigline *
- * You'll have to make do with this one *
- ****************************************
- Lee Huggett lee@burst.demon.co.uk
- c9251123@zeus.hud.ac.uk
-
-