home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2663 comp.sys.mac.hardware:23878 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:32905
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!Xenon.Stanford.EDU!torrie
- From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
- Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
- Message-ID: <torrie.724148637@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>
- Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
- Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
- Organization: DSO, Stanford University
- References: <gf4ElH600iV4A39oMi@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Nov25.130250.10922@utkux1.utk.edu> <1992Nov26.000926.9507@doug.cae.wisc.edu> <Bz2C4s.FqE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
- Date: 12 Dec 92 08:23:57 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
-
- > Macintosh IICi, built-in Apple video, 680x480(yuck)x256 colors.
- > 32 bit addressing turned on, VRAM on, 16 Meg available, disk
- > cache 384K.
-
- >Software: Excel 3 (I will try it with Excel 4 in the next couple days).
-
- I tried it with Excel 4.0 on the Mac, which is generally slower than
- Excel 3.0 in my experience.
-
- >The test: Put an integer into cell A1. Cells B1 -> Z1 are cell to the left
- > + 1. Cells A2 -> Z1000 are cell above +1. See how long it takes
- > to recalc the sheet after changing value of A1.
-
- >Results: Under Windows recalc took 3.3 seconds.
- >On the Mac, 7.5 seconds.
-
- 4.1 seconds on my IIci.
-
- > I'll try this and other benchmarks on different machines. Don't
- > have a Quadra to try though.
-
- I do though. 1.2 seconds for the same test on a 25MHz 68040 Quadra.
-
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu
- Embrace rationalism, reject superstition. Break away from the past.
- "...there is only one thing worse than having marketing people on a project,
- and that is having no marketing people on a project." - Larry Tesler.
-