From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Fri Jan 15 11:52:32 2010 Message-ID: <4B509C7F.80908@atari-source.org> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:49:03 -0500 From: Mark Duckworth User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] gcc 68000 vs 68020-60 vs 68060 comparison References: <4B508F3F.3040509@freesbee.fr> In-Reply-To: <4B508F3F.3040509@freesbee.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: mduckworth@atari-source.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: On 1/15/10 10:52 AM, Vincent Rivière wrote: > Miro Kropacek a écrit : >> or mintlib is >> not very good testcase (since it uses a lot of external stuff) > > As a good real-world benchmark, I propose you to try bzip2. > It is a quite small program, easy to recompile. At runtime, it is > notoriously slow on any machine. You can try to compress a file of some > size, let's say 1 MB, and see how much time it takes. You should try > with a file big enough no not be annoyed by the speed of disk access. > Then you can rebuild bzip2 with the different CPU options, and see the > timing differences. > You should run each test several times and take the last time probably to negate the effects of disk and cpu cache? Thanks, mark