Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 07:27:46 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <vqgrhi$1o8f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vpufbv$4qc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2025Mar4.110420@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vq829a$232tl$6@dont-email.me>
 <2025Mar5.083636@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vqb1cv$vq5$1@gal.iecc.com>
 <877c51mvy4.fsf@localhost>
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:27:46 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="974d57b88bf7f13d248ca37a0b36d4ec";
	logging-data="57615"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fU5FF6BN/1es4ualvJpMwwMVhGgZfRCw="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xhdaf3cKIxn253AAaUN0R72enCM=
Bytes: 2119

Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> schrieb:

> long ago and far away ... comparing pascal to pascal front-end with
> pl.8 back-end (3033 is 370 about 4.5MIPS)
>
> Date: 8 August 1981, 16:47:28 EDT
> To: wheeler
>
> the 801 group here has run a program under several different PASCAL
> "systems".  The program was about 350 statements and basically
> "solved" SOMA (block puzzle..).  Although this is only one test, and
> all of the usual caveats apply, I thought the numbers were
> interesting...  The numbers given in each case are EXECUTION TIME ONLY
> (Virtual on 3033).
>
> 6m 30 secs               PERQ (with PERQ's Pascal compiler, of course)
> 4m 55 secs               68000 with PASCAL/PL.8 compiler at OPT 2
> 0m 21.5 secs             3033 PASCAL/VS with Optimization
> 0m 10.5 secs             3033 with PASCAL/PL.8 at OPT 0
> 0m 5.9 secs              3033 with PASCAL/PL.8 at OPT 3

Interesting figures. there is a factor of 50 of 68000 vs the 3033,
which was in the ~1 MIPS range, with the same compiler technology.