Filter
Top Products
APPENDIX
CONCLUSION
The results
of
this benchmark study show that the iAPX
88/10 significantly outperformed both the
Z80A and
Z80B for the benchmark programs used. Table 8 shows
that the iAPX
88
is
faster than both the Z80A and the
Z80B, and that the iAPX
88
uses fewer lines
of
code,
less memory and cheaper memory than the
Z80.
The iAPX
88
did particularly
well
in the programs
which were word oriented. It
was
also efficient to pro-
gram due to the powerful instruction set and flexible ad-
dressing modes. Both processors do have useful string
instructions and a loop instruction with an automatic
counter. The
Z80 has faster interrupt response, but was
slower and
less
efficient than the iAPX
88
for nearly all
other benchmarks.
In
view
of
these results, it appears that the iAPX
88
is
a
better choice for applications where high throughput,
low development cost and low memory cost are impor-
tant considerations.
Table
8.
Performance Breakdown
Performance Ratio
of
Performance Category iAPX
88
to
zeo
Execution Speed (Z80A)
iAPX 88/10 is 3.79X faster
Execution Speed
(Z80B) iAPX 88/10
is
2.52X faster
Execution Speed
(Z80A)* iAPX 88/10
is
4.77X faster
Execution Speed
(Z80B)** iAPX 88/10 is 3.20X faster
Execution Speed
(Z80B)*·· iAPX 88/10
is
3.83X faster
Ease
of
Programming
iAPX 88/10
is
2.51X more
efficient
Coding Efficiency
iAPX 88/10
is
1.97X more
efficient
NOTES:
*iAPX
88
vs
Z80A with comparable memory (Z80A with 1 wait state).
"iAPX
88
vs
Z80B with comparable memory (Z80B with 1 wait state).
·*"'iAPX 88
vs
Z80B with comparable memory (Z80B with 2 wait states).
9
AFN·01664A