Maybe we should agree a set of Poplog benchmarks and put the on an
ftp server so people can apply them to lots of different machines.
The question is what shall we call them POPmarks?
Anthony.Worrall@Reading.ac.uk
PS Arron I assume by SS/672 you mean a SpacServer 4/670 with two
Cyprus 102 CPUs as used in the SparcStation 2.
In article 56s@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk, A.Sloman@uk.ac.bham.cs writes:
>At present the fastest processor we have on which we run Poplog is
>the Ross Hypersparc 66Mhz. It is now possible to buy 100 Mhz
>hypersparcs and I hear that 125 Mhz models will shortly be
>available.
>
>Does anyone know how these compare with other machines that Poplog
>runs on? E.g. what about the fastest currently available HP machine,
>or SGI machine or Dec Alpha (alas I gather only VMS poplog is being
>ported to the Alpha?)
>
>I shall shortly have to buy a compute server for a research project
>using Poplog so any user experience on this would be helpful.
>
>I can provide some comparative figures on machines I have tested using a
>simple Poplog prolog benchmark and two simple Pop-11 benchmarks, as
>follows:
>
> A B C D E F G H I
> DEC HP Sun* Sun Sun Sun Sun Sun
> 3100 MIPS HP-UX SS2 SS/ SS10 SS10 SS10 Ross
> 2000 M68040 672 /30 /41 /52 HS66
> Sol2.3 mhz
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Prolog test KLips 56.1 68.9 107.8 117.0 134.8 203.3 238 295 335
>(Simple reverse)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Pop-11 Factorial(1000)
>three times (Secs)
> recursive 0.78 0.80 0.55 0.81 0.75 0.55 0.46 0.42 0.38
> iterative 0.77 0.80 0.57 0.78 0.71 0.51 0.45 0.40 0.38
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Floating point
> single (secs) 0.88 0.67 0.71 0.38 0.38 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.13
> double 1.05 0.85 0.60 0.43 0.41 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.16
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>* Replacing SS2 processor with Weitek chip gave
> 177 Klips, Factorial: 0.5, 0.45 secs, Float: 0.23, 0.3 secs
> I.e. not quite SS10/30
>
>For the Prolog test, the bigger the number the better. For all others,
>the smaller the number the better. Note that the Poplog prolog compiler
>contains no special optimisations for the naive reverse benchmark, so
>this can't be compared with figures for other Prolog systems!
>
>WARNINGS:
>
>a. Benchmarks should always be taken with a pinch of salt. These all
> use internally measured CPU time, not elapsed time. Also because of
> the unpredictability of Unix I ran the programs several times and
> took the best results, rather than averaging, as I was trying to
> assess relative (maximum) speeds of processors.
>
>b. There were several programs running on some of the machines when I
> did the tests (Unix is hard to control anyway).
>
>c. The values in column H were on a machine running Solaris 2.3. All
> the other suns were using SunOS 4.1.3 (or earlier).
>
>I assume the Ross Hypersparc values would scale roughly with clock
>speed. I.e. for 125 MHz the figures would be:
> 639 Klips, Factorial 0.20, 0.20 secs, Float 0.068 0.084 secs
>
>Comparison with new 70Mhz and 90Mhz Supersparc is hard to guess.
>
>I don't assume that published Specint or Specfp figures are necessarily
>an accurate guide to Poplog performance because CPU specific
>optimisations that Compiler writers do for other compilers may not be
>done in Poplog.
>
>Any ideas about new HP, SGI, or DEC Alpha? Any experience of reliability
>or service also welcome.
>
>Any gueses regarding Ultrasparc ????
>Aaron
|