home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- This is a README file for Amiga port of BYTE Magazine portable
- benchmarks. For more informations see README and bdoc.txt files. Original
- files are available at ftp://byte.com/bench/
-
-
- Contents
-
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Usage
- 3. Porting
- 4. Contact
- 5. History
-
-
- 1. Introduction
-
- I've been a reader of BYTE Magazine for a long time and I like it
- very much. It used to cover Amiga from time to time and some very good
- articles were published there (e.g. "The Object-Oriented Amiga Exec"). Today,
- BYTE is a valuable source of informations about new CPUs, operating systems,
- network technologies, etc.
- Several months ago BYTE created a new benchmarking standard called
- BYTEmark (tm). These portable benchmark programs test computer's CPU and FPU
- speed by executing real-world algorithms. This is BYTEmark port to Amiga,
- done with SAS/C compiler.
-
-
- 2. Usage
-
- Five executables are provided:
- NBench - for Amigas with 68000 CPU and no FPU (mathieee.library)
- NBench.020 - for Amigas with 68020 CPU and no FPU (mathieee.library)
- NBench.020.881 - for Amigas with 68020 CPU and FPU
- NBench.040 - for Amigas with 68040 CPU and no FPU (mathieee.library)
- NBench.040.881 - for Amigas with 68040 CPU and FPU
- Run the executable appropriate for your computer (either from Shell or
- Workbench). Please note that a file named 'nnet.dat' must be present in the
- directory where executables exist. On slow computers (like my A1200 with FAST
- RAM) it may take a few hours to do all benchmarks. Results are indexed
- relative to a 90MHz Pentium. E.g. a score of 0.02 means that on a given test
- your Amiga is 50 times slower than a 90MHz Pentium system, while a score of
- 2.0 indicates that your computer is twice as fast as a 90MHz Pentium system.
-
- Sample results obtained using 020 version of NBench on an A1200
- (14MHz MC68020, 20 MHz MC68882) with 4MB of FAST RAM:
-
- Using IEEE math (NBench.020):
-
- BYTEmark (tm) Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (3/95)
- NUMERIC SORT: Iterations/sec.: 1.309980 Index: 0.033854
- STRING SORT: Iterations/sec.: 0.036165 Index: 0.015897
- BITFIELD: Iterations/sec.: 234792.492489 Index: 0.040274
- FP EMULATION: Iterations/sec.: 0.106421 Index: 0.051164
- FOURIER: Iterations/sec.: 5.937827 Index: 0.006723
- ASSIGNMENT: Iterations/sec.: 0.016969 Index: 0.064653
- IDEA: Iterations/sec.: 1.940385 Index: 0.029688
- HUFFMAN: Iterations/sec.: 1.292873 Index: 0.035928
- NEURAL NET: Iterations/sec.: 0.002372 Index: 0.004013
- LU DECOMPOSITION: Iterations/sec.: 0.066017 Index: 0.003898
- ...done...
- ===========OVERALL============
- INTEGER INDEX: 0.035875
- FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 0.004720
- (90 MHz Dell Pentium = 1.00)
- ==============================
-
- Using 68881 math (NBench.020.881):
-
- BYTEmark (tm) Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (3/95)
- NUMERIC SORT: Iterations/sec.: 1.250116 Index: 0.032307
- STRING SORT: Iterations/sec.: 0.035200 Index: 0.015472
- BITFIELD: Iterations/sec.: 228693.042185 Index: 0.039228
- FP EMULATION: Iterations/sec.: 0.104482 Index: 0.050232
- FOURIER: Iterations/sec.: 10.602037 Index: 0.012005
- ASSIGNMENT: Iterations/sec.: 0.016827 Index: 0.064110
- IDEA: Iterations/sec.: 1.923596 Index: 0.029431
- HUFFMAN: Iterations/sec.: 1.409290 Index: 0.039163
- NEURAL NET: Iterations/sec.: 0.006579 Index: 0.011131
- LU DECOMPOSITION: Iterations/sec.: 0.175353 Index: 0.010353
- ...done...
- ===========OVERALL============
- INTEGER INDEX: 0.035622
- FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 0.011143
- (90 MHz Dell Pentium = 1.00)
- ==============================
-
- As you can see, my A1200 is about 28 times slower than a Pentium
- machine doing integer calculation, and about 90 times slower doing
- floating-point calculations. What's more, floating-point performance
- increases almost three times when using direct FPU calls!
-
-
- 3. Porting
-
- Since benchmarks are written in ANSI C they test not just CPU+FPU,
- but rather compiler/CPU+FPU combination. When compiled with different
- compileres, different results will be obtained.
- I've encountered very few troubles porting the code. I needed to
- change some #define statements and replace all Func(); declarations with
- Func(void); declarations, as well as add some casts to avoid compiler
- warnings. I've also created SMakeFile. Dummy INCLUDE:mem.h file (which is
- actually a copy of INCLUDE:strings.h) must be created to let the source
- compile.
- One test (String Sort) is particularly slow. I suspect that this is
- due to SAS implementation of memmove() function.
-
-
- 4. Contact
-
- Your opinions are welcomed! Send them (as well as comments, test
- results, executables obtained with different compilers, etc.) to:
-
- Michal Letowski
- Przyjazni 51/17
- 53-030 Wroclaw
- POLAND
-
- or
-
- pro37@ci3ux.ci.pwr.wroc.pl
-
-
- 5. History
-
- Version 2.0 (6.11.95) - initial version, compiled from BYTEmark release 2
- sources.
-
- Version 2.1 (19.1.96) - .881 versions were unusable due to wrong options
- setup. This is fixed now.
-
- Version 2.2 (2.6.96) - stack usage reduced down to 4KB, more compiler
- optimizations enabled.
-