On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Mark Guzdial wrote:
How does Morphic performance feel? That's about half the benchmark numbers of my Powermac 6100/66, and it does feel reasonable in Morphic. I have a Quadra 800 sitting on the floor here that I wouldn't mind Linux-izing if the result was a reasonable-feeling Squeak machine.
I'm using a Quadra 800 as my regular desktop machine - and Morphic performance is terrible - I assume because it doesn't use the floating point chip.
Network Technology Corporation PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 mfidelman@ntcorp.com 617-558-3698 http://www.ntcorp.com fax: 617-630-8946
Ok I ran some quick tests For a Macintosh IIvx, a 32Mhz 68030, with 68882. 32K L2 cache.
"Yet another simplified code example, no I didn't want to wait a million iterations"
Time millisecondsToRun: [100000 timesRepeat: [10.0+5.0/18.88*9.77-5.77]]
The 2.5 VM without 68882 support as shipped took 82319 & 80194 milliseconds
My recompiled VM with 68882 support took 63128 & 62662 milliseconds
Perhaps I'll reboot the 950 with a Mac OS and see how long it takes to run the code example. But for now note the 950 took only 17410 & 17330 milliseconds
(The 950 being a 66Mhz 68040 with 8K L1 cache)
But of course the question really is how much floating point math do you do? (Another question is performance under macos and compiler, versus under Linux and GCC) -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com =========================================================================== Custom Macintosh programming & various Smalltalk dialects PGP Key: DSS/Diff/46FC3BE6 Fingerprint=B22F 7D67 92B7 5D52 72D7 E94A EE69 2D21 46FC 3BE6 ===========================================================================
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org