Re: Apple II benchmarks

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <3939304A.6816733A@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
 
> Supertimer wrote:
> 
>> pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>>
>>>Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As stated above Paul, Byte magazine did the comparison in 1985, and they
>>>> were dealing with a product review for an 8086-2 based computer. That's
>>>> why there was no comparison to an 80186
>>
> 
> It's too bad that Paul hadn't noticed that *I* hadn't done the tests. Besides
> that, the tests were between real machines that one could buy, not fantasy
> machines. To my knowledge, the only computer sold in the US in any real numbers
> that used the 80186 was the Tandy 2000, and it wasn't all that compatible with
> the IBM - different disk drives, different video display, a not too compatible
> BIOS, and I believe the slots weren't all that compatible either.
 
To Intel, the 80186/188 was an embedded processor rather than a general-purpose
CPU.  That's because the 80186/188 had extra circuits on-chip such as times,
interrupt controllers, etc -- things that are nice to have on the CPU chip
in an embedded environment, to keep down the chip count.
 
>>>Which means they were comparing to an 80x86 with no hardware multiply....
> 
> Does the 6502 have hardware multiply? Anyone know?
 
No... :-)
 
> If not, then it certainly was a fair test wasn't it?
 
It's fair only as long as there's no claim that the 8086/8088 has a
hardware multiply, because it doesn't.
 
> And I don't think it would have been a fair test using a math co, when
> very few PCs or XTs ever had them.
 
Using a math coprocessor wouldn't offer such a great speed advantage.
Sure, the FP mult on the 8087 was faster than the integer mult on the
8086/88, but in addition you'd have to convert the integer to
floating-point before the multiply, and convert back to integer after
the multiply.  Doing these three things on the 8087 would not have
been faster than doing an integer multiply on the 8086/88.
 
> Usually only those doing full time heavy duty spreadsheet work would
> have them, and the few who used them for engineering or scientific
> work, and if that was all the market that IBM had, the Apple II would
> still be the dominate machine today.
 
Fortunately computers have evolved, so 8-bit machines are no longer
the norm.... :-))))
 
>> It had 640k of memory and a socket for an 8087 math
>> coprocessor.  I never populated this socket, but the PCT
>> was horribly slow even though its CPU clock speed was
>> turbo speed and the V30 was supposed to be faster than
>> the real 80186.
>>
> 
> The V20/V30 was between 5% and 40% faster than an 8088/8086, depending on what
> kind of code was being run. It was at the high end when doing floating point
> multiply and divide operations.
 
The V20/v30, which were replacements for 8088/8086, didn't do FP instrcutions;
you needed a coprocessor for that... <g>
 
>> Now in 8-bit emulation mode, the IIGS should be equal to
>> an 8-bit "Apple II" clock for clock right (since in 8-bit mode
>> the 16-bit functions of the CPU are turned off)?  But the
>> IIGS' clock speed is faster just like the PC Transporter's
>> clock speed is faster than the real 80186.
> 
> 2.5 times faster compared to about .5 times faster,
 
0.5 times faster --  that's 2 times slower, right?
 
> plus the wider data bus of course.
> 
>> I am convinced now that we see history through our
>> own experiences.  After all, why is every time
>> someone mentions "Apple II"  you think of an
>> Apple II+ in CP/M mode while to me I think of a IIGS?
> 
> Was this directed to me? Or to Paul? When someone says Apple II, I
> think of 6502/65C02 based personal computers.
 
Including the Commodore PET, the Vic-20 and the Commodore-64?  Or the
KIM-1, SYM-1 or AIM-65?  Or the Apple I or Apple ///?  These were all
6502 based....
 
When someone says "Apple II", I think of the Apple II, II+, IIe or IIc.
If someone wants to make me think of the Apple IIgs, they have to say
"Apple IIgs" or "IIgs".
 
>> And why is it that every time someone mentions "PC"
>> I think of a PC Transporter card in a IIGS in Turbo XT
>> emulation (80186 compatible) and you think of a PC
>> with a math coprocessor chip?
> 
> When someone says PC, I think of my Portable PC, or the XT that my wife
> used at work when I was in grad school. Neither one had a math co, and
> both were mostly used for word processing.
 
The acronym "PC" really means "Personal Computer": in that context,
the Apple II and the Mac were also PC's .....
 
Confusing, isn't it?
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch