SPONSORED LINKS
At 06:42 AM 1/4/98 EST, Robert Dewar wrote: >The Norton SI benchnmark is a notorious piece of junk. It relies heavily >on the timing for integer multiply and divide, which are not at all >indicative of general performance. It was written way back when Peter >really did not know much about architecture. It served to measure >relative rates for the same chip, but across chips it is seriously >misleading. > >There were also alignment problems in at least one version of SI (Peter >did not understand that alignment of code is critical in benchnmarks), >but I think that has been corrected. Without commenting on the quality of the Norton SI benchmark (I only included it because it was quick & simple, in addition to the much more involved and detailed benchmarks I ran), it should be noted that Peter Norton hasn't been involved in any of the Symantec products bearing his name for *many* years. I'm sure that most flaws from his earlier work have been dealt with and the above criticism is worthy only as a historical note. ------- Randal J. Whittle whittle@usc.edu (213) 740-7775 Director, Electronic Commerce Program Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California