NT/Pentium vs. NeXT/Pentium vs. Mac/PPC
Looks good for NeXT.
From MacEvangelist.
--------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:02:21 -0500 (EST)
From: MacWay@aol.com
Subject: Mathematica Benchmarks
Message-ID: <970211200033_-1776881752@emout03.mail.aol.com>
Keyword: Market by market, Science
This tidbit is from:
Larry Yaeger, <larryy@apple.com>
Check out these Mathematica benchmarks:
<http://fampm201.tu-graz.ac.at/karl/timings30.html>
It's a set of benchmark timings of Mathematica on various platforms. The
datapoints are a little difficult to correlate, since RAM sizes and L2
cache sizes vary a lot, and I don't know how memory intensive this
particular evaluation is. But there are a few interesting observations to
be made from these numbers.
[All benchmark performance numbers are given relative to a reference of
1.0 for a PowerMac 7600/120 (a 120 MHz 604 processor), and higher is
better.]
First, a PowerMac clone is at the absolute top of the list with a
benchmark performance value of 2.09. That's nice.
Second, four of the top five machines are PowerMacs, and the only
Intel-based machine in those top five is running NeXTStep v3.3.
Third, following up on that last observation, the tests happen to include
benchmarks for four different 200 MHz Pentium Pro systems--one running
NeXTStep v3.3, two running WindowsNT v4.0, and one running Windows
95--which yield the following benchmark performance numbers:
NeXTStep v3.3 1.86
Windows NT v4.0 1.071
Windows NT v4.0 1.01
Windows 95 0.956
So with approximately the same hardware (certainly the same CPU),
NeXTStep outperforms both Windows NT and Windows 95 by nearly a factor of
two. This bodes very well for our future MacOS plans! |
