[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Executor (was Re: MACINTOSH IS BEST)
-
To: executor@ardi.com
-
Subject: Re: Executor (was Re: MACINTOSH IS BEST)
-
From: Clifford T. Matthews <ctm@ardi.com>
-
Date: 02 Mar 1996 14:24:09 -0700
-
Followup-To: comp.emulators.mac.executor,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
-
In-reply-to: Clifford T. Matthews's message of 28 Feb 1996 05:30:10 -0700
-
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.os.msdos.misc, comp.emulators.mac.executor
-
Organization: ARDI
-
References: <4bdter$5os@netaxs.com> <4eal6n$e3t@zippy.cais.net> <DLuKzH.76M@news.cis.umn.edu> <4eqqve$1f7@complete.org> <4f9mh8$t84@giant.seas.smu.edu> <31195A5D.2781E494@valley.net> <31199EAC.3E6C@basic.net> <4fdl14$rul@news.iii.net> <4fdrl3$6f6@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4fe6i2$ca7@madrid.visi.net> <jragosta-0902961517110001@ppp-1002.dca.net> <4gjfid$do@complete.org> <jragosta-2302961340020001@ppp-1002.dca.net> <ufka1cbkhd.fsf@ftp.ardi.com> <jragosta-2602961354040001@ppp-1012.dca.net> <ufg2bvskdp.fsf_-_@ftp.ardi.com>
-
Sender: owner-executor
-
Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
-
Xref: sloth.swcp.com comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:110038 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:91767 comp.os.msdos.misc:32505 comp.emulators.mac.executor:1316
NOTE: I believe this thread has moved to comp.emulators.mac.executor
and comp.os.mac.advocacy, but since my original incorrect statements
were made in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and comp.os.msdos.misc as
well as those two groups, I thought my retraction should be posted to
all the original groups.
An earlier discussion comparing SoftWindows for running PC programs on
Macs and Executor for running Mac programs on PCs, contained the
following exchange.
>>>>> "Cliff" == Clifford T Matthews <ctm@ardi.com> writes:
>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Ragosta <jragosta@dca.net> writes:
Cliff> However, Joe neglected to mention that within Executor's
Cliff> limitations, an N MHz Pentium will run 68k Mac programs
Cliff> *faster* than an N MHz PPC601. In fact, an entry level
Cliff> Pentium running Executor will run 68k code faster than the
Cliff> vast majority of 68k based Macs Apple sold, including most
Cliff> Quadras (ftp://ftp.ardi.com/pub/SynPaper explains how we get
Cliff> such great performance).
Joe> ROTFL. I'll tell you what. Try running a PowerMac 7500 with
Joe> Speed Doubler and System 7.5.3 and I doubt very much that
Joe> you'll be even in the same ball park.
Joe was right. Part of what I wrote above was wrong.
The claim that "an entry level Pentium running Executor will run 68k
code faster than the vast majority of 68k based Macs Apple sold..." is
correct.
However, the claim that "an N MHz Pentium will run 68k Mac programs
*faster* than an N MHz PPC601" is no longer correct, assuming the
PPC601 is using Apple's new synthetic CPU or Speed Doubler. Here are
some relevant benchamarks, with some comments:
O R I G I N A L N E W estimated
------------------------------- --------------
PPC601 PPC601 scaled
Quadra Pentium 486DX4 486DX/2 100MHz 100MHz Pentium
610 90MHz 75MHz 66MHz w/o SD w/ SD 100 MHz
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------
CPU 16.018 28.833 15.727 13.840 32.04 54.06 32.036
Dhrystones 19.586 21.886 12.084 9.424 42.76 54.98 24.317
Tower 18.909 27.130 12.235 11.556 52.00 29.71 30.144
Quicksort 17.759 27.105 15.606 13.919 30.29 57.22 30.116
Bubble sort 18.409 31.154 19.286 16.875 36.82 57.86 34.614
Queens 19.083 38.167 19.083 18.320 50.89 65.43 42.407
Puzzle 22.083 44.167 23.661 21.032 47.32 73.61 49.074
Permutations 21.019 28.564 11.604 12.242 48.43 61.89 31.737
Int. Matrix 24.200 26.469 19.369 16.608 70.58 94.11 29.410
Sieve 23.362 60.290 33.982 30.145 31.68 81.26 66.988
------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ------
Average 20.490 33.881 18.582 16.680 45.641 64.007 37.645
The first four columns are from ftp://ftp.ardi.com/pub/SynPaper, our
white paper that describes how our synthetic CPU is so fast on an
architecture that is so different from the PPC.
The next two columns were contributed by an Executor user who had
access to a 100 MHz PowerMac 7500 on which he ran Speedometer 3.23,
both with and without Speed Doubler ("SD").
The third column is derived by multiplying the second column by 10/9
(i.e. the ratio of 100 MHz to 90 MHz), which we used instead of
getting a 100 MHz Pentium for a few reasons*.
Although the specific claim that "MHz per MHz Executor runs 68k code
faster than a PPC601" is no longer true (it was true when SynPaper was
written, when Apple was still shipping their first 68k emulator), the
point I was making in the exchange between Joe and me is still
correct. SoftWindows can run a greater percentage of applications
than Executor can, but Executor is significantly faster than
SoftWindows.
I apologize to both Joe and the readers of these groups for my
outdated claim.
--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com
More information, including a downloadable demo copy of Executor, can
be found on http://www.ardi.com/.
__________________
*I wanted to get this apology out ASAP, so that people who catch this
message but didn't see the original exchange will still be able to
retrieve it.
It should be possible to squeak out higher numbers by using a P100
with a faster bus speed and better cache than the Dell Omniplex 590
that we took the original measurements on, but since the PowerMac 7500
isn't in our control, there may be tweaks missing there that would
have resulted in higher numbers there, too.
In addition, the latest "BleedingEdge" release of Executor doesn't get
speedometer numbers this high because of a (soon to be fixed) problem
with our recently added sound subsystem.
Overall it made more sense to just scale the old numbers, admit my
mistake and get back to work on making Executor better!
References: