Subject: Re: why do we do it
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE>
Date: 08/23/2005 12:13:43
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:56:46AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Sean Davis wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:29:04AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Jochen Kunz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:32:35 +0200
> > > > >
> > > > > I leave it to your homework to calculate estimated build times based on
> > > > > the MIPS numbers. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I can also tell that on a VAX-8650, it takes a little over a week
> > > > nowadays.
> > > > In speed comparision, a VAX-8650 is about 6 VUPS (maybe a bit more), while
> > > > the 11/750 is the same 0.65 VUPS. That would leave us somewhere around 11
> > > > weeks. Now, an 11/750 can't have more than 14 megs of physical memory (or
> > > > something like it), which means it will probably be even worse.
> > >
> > > Has anybody written anything to benchmark a machine in VUPS? I'd be
> > > interested to know how many VUPS an Athlon gets, or an Opteron ;)
> > Doubt there would be a point to it, since you don't have the same
> > instructions. VUPS is mostly meaningful to compare different VAXen, since
> > that will tell you how fast the same code would execute on different
> > machines. Binary code, that is.
> Well, there is the concept of running the VAX simulator on those systems.
> And given how CPU performance had grown over time, it could make for some
> fast VAX systems. :-)
True. And you should probably be able to rate the simlators VUPS.
A new compile of the simulator, with a better compiler (or other options)
would however give you a machine with a different VUPS rating. So it would
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: email@example.com || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol