home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
- From: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: Speed: 68040 vs. 68060
- Date: 26 Feb 1996 08:53:23 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4grotj$8q3@serpens.rhein.de>
- References: <4foi00$60t@gondor.sdsu.edu> <3125E74D.3390@gih.no> <19960223.425E10.10CBD@an100.du.pipex.com> <19960225.7AF9790.E534@asd10-22.dial.xs4all.nl> <19960226.477570.1832@an174.du.pipex.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- m.hendry@dial.pipex.com (Mathew Hendry) writes:
-
- >BTW, running the BYTEMarks in a multitasking environment is actually likely
- >to show the Amiga in a good light, because AmigaOS has much lower task
- >switching overheads than many other multitasking OSs...
-
- Right.
-
- >: As for FP performance, I didn't look through the source all that closely but it
- >: seemed to me that the FP tests happened to hammer mainly on the few FP
- >: instructions that aren't implemented on the 040 (and are trapped by SW
- >: emulation). Here too the Amiga could be getting results that can be said to be
- >: artificially low by a very large factor.
-
- >Again, we're talking about the real world here. The algorithms were selected
- >to mirror those common in real applications. Do you think that they are not
- >representative?
-
- The binaries might be not representative. If compiled for the right CPU there
- shouldn't be a huge emulation overhead.
-
- >Does SAS support the inlining of the unimplemented instructions as well? I
- >guess not.
-
- SAS either inlines FPU instructions or uses functions calls. For 040 you would
- only inline the implemented instructions and use 040-aware functions for the
- rest.
-
- Regards,
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-