Filter
Top Products
APPENDIX
Table
3.
Execution
Times
with
"Equal"
Memory
Access
Times
(5 MHz 88/10
vs
2
MHz
6809)
Absolute
Time
Normalized
Time
Benchmark
Program
iAPX 88110
Computer Graphics 2.32 sec.
16-Bit Multiply
40.8
us
Vector Add
295.0 us
Block Move
328.0 us
Block Translate
1507.0
us
Character
Search
136.0
us
Word
Shift 14.4
us
Reentrant Call 87.6
us
Single-Vectored Interrupt
102.6
us
Multi-Vectored Interrupt
24.6 us
Average Normalized Execution
Time·"
Adjusted Average Normalized Execution
Time··
*Times for the MC6809 include
one
wait state
on
memory accesses.
··See
note,
Table 2, for description
of
average calculations.
of
the ten programs. The MC6809's Average Normal-
ized Time
of
4.17
greatly reflects (as
it
did in Table
2)
the fact that the iAPX 88/10 outperformed the MC6809
by a large margin (more than
24
to
1)
in the Computer
Graphics benchmark. The Adjusted Average
Normal-
ized Time
of
2.10 indicates that, after eliminating the
Computer Graphics and Single-Vectored Interrupt, the
iAPX 88/10
was
more than twice
as
fast as the MC6809.
Table 4 compares the performance
of
the iAPX
88
and
the
MC6809 in terms
of
memory use, or coding efficien-
cy. The results in this table show that the
iAPX
88
used
less
code for nine
of
the ten programs. The two pro-
MC6809*
57.1 sec.
91.9 us
369.0 us
763.0 us
3016.0 us
324.0 us
49.1 us
84.1 us
30.1 us
55.3 us
iAPX88/10 MC6809
24.61
2.25
1.25
2.33
2.00
2.38
3.78
0.96
0.29
2.25
4.21
2.15
grams in which the largest performance differences oc-
curred were the interrupt response benchmarks. The
MC6809 won on the Single-Vectored Interrupt, largely
due to the
use
of
its IRQ interrupt which automatically
stacks all the
MC6809's registers. The iAPX 88/10 per-
formed better for the Multi-Vectored Interrupt because
its interrupt response requires no extra code to
accom-
modate multiple interrupt vectors. For the other pro-
grams, the iAPX
88
provides significant advantages due
to its string instructions and its efficient handling
of
16-bit quantities. Tne Adjusted Average Normalized
Number
of
Bytes shows the iAPX
88
with better than a
2 to 1 advantage over the
MC6809
in
coding efficiency.
Table
4.
Memory
Utilization (Bytes)
Bytes
of
Code
Benchmark
Program
iAPX 88/10 MC6809
Computer Graphics
16-Bit Multiply
Vector Add
Block Move
Block Translate
Character
Search
Word Shift
Reentrant Call
Single-Vectored Interrupt
Multi-Vectored Interrupt
40
14
18
15
24
18
6
48
15
Average Normalized Number
of
Bytes
of
Code"
Adjusted Average Normalized Number
of
Bytes
of
Code·
"'See
note,
Table 2, for description
of
average calculations.
180
56
21
26
37
19
18
49
1
15
25
Normalized
Bytes
iAPX 88/10 MC6809
4.50
4.00
1.17
1.73
1.54
1.06
3.00
1.02
0.D7
15.00
3.31
2.25
AFN
01532A