Need 286 "C" benchmark

[Phil Ngai]

In article <293 at celerity.UUCP> ron at celerity.UUCP (Ron McDaniels) writes:
>If 64k segments aren't a problem and the "large system model" is so
>blasted good (if you like to go into interpretive mode when you
>execute), why does the 386 have a 32-bit segment length? 64k segments
>are architecturally stinko. I realize you still have to sell chips so
>that you can pay the bills, but stop making silly comparisons.

I read the enclosed quote from Ken Shoemaker and nowhere do I see that he
says 64K segments aren't a problem. What he does say is for programs
that require less than 64K of data, a 286 competes nicely with a 68020.

I enclose the quote in question below.

>In article <588 at intelca.UUCP> kds at intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) writes:
>>Hmmm, once again Dave has submitted a benchmark that requires more than 64K
>>of data.  This continued harping on the issue seems to indicate to me that
>>maybe Dave realizes that for programs that require less than 64K of data
>>that a 12MHz 286 actually keeps pace with the 16.67 MHz 68020.
-- 
 There's always tomorrow.

 Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil at decwrl.ARPA