Here is the Byte Magazine benchmark suite from 1977, extended with the 8th benchmark by Creative Computing 1983:
Code: Select all
BENCHMARK 1 (new)
100 REM TEST 1
110 PRINT "START"
120 FOR K=1 TO 1000
130 NEXT K
500 PRINT "STOP"
550 END
BENCHMARK 2 (add/replace lines)
120 K=0
130 K=K+1
190 IF K<1000 THEN GOTO 130
BENCHMARK 3
140 A=K/K*K+K-K
BENCHMARK 4
140 A=K/2*3+4-5
BENCHMARK 5
150 GOSUB 600
600 RETURN
BENCHMARK 6
125 DIM M(5)
155 FOR L=1 TO 5
160 NEXT L
BENCHMARK 7
157 M(L)=A
BENCHMARK 8 by Creative Computing (new)
100 REM TEST 8
110 PRINT "START"
120 K=0
130 K=K+1
140 A=K^2
150 B=LOG(K)
160 C=SIN(K)
170 IF K<1000 THEN GOTO 130
180 PRINT "STOP"
190 END
To begin with, here are the results in seconds from a range of mostly 8-bit computers. The list does not contain the exact same examplse as in the Ahl benchmark, but gives you an idea what to expect:
Code: Select all
BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4 BM5 BM6 BM7 BM8 Avg
--------------------------------------------------
BBC (B ?) 0.6 3.2 8.1 8.8 9.9 14.3 21.9 48 14.3
Acorn Atom 0.5 5.1 9.5 10.8 13.9 19.1 31.1 92 22.8
Telestrat 0.5 3.6 11.4 13.2 13.4 18.7 26.3 109 24.6
VIC-20 1.4 8.3 15.5 17.1 18.3 27.2 42.7 99 28.7
Apple II 1.3 8.5 16.0 17.8 19.1 28.6 44.8 107 30.4
Dragon 32 1.6 10.2 19.7 21.6 23.3 34.3 50.0 129 36.2
Oric Atmos 1.6 15.2 25.4 27.4 33.0 45.6 68.5 136 44.1
SVI-328 1.6 5.4 17.9 19.6 20.6 30.7 42.2 236 46.7
ZX81 (fast) 4.5 6.9 16.4 15.8 18.6 49.7 68.5 229 51.2
Microtan 65 1.9 12.8 24.7 27.8 29.6 43.2 68.9 243 56.5
ZX Spectrum 4.8 8.7 21.1 20.4 24.0 55.3 80.7 253 58.5
Oric-1 1.8 17.1 29.0 31.4 38.0 51.8 77.8 230 59.6
Atari 600XL 2.2 7.2 19.1 22.8 25.8 37.6 58.3 412 73.1
TI-99/4A 2.9 8.8 22.8 24.5 26.1 61.6 84.4 382 76.6
Now how fast is the official CreatiVision BASIC? I ran these in the 1983 version, but I doubt the 1982 one is any faster. Obviously the hacked one would run a bit faster though. Prepare yourselves!
Benchmark 1: 20 seconds! Yes, a simple FOR-NEXT loop running for 1000 iterations takes more than four times as long as the slow ZX Spectrum.
Benchmark 2: 60 seconds using K=K+1 and IF statement instead of the loop
Benchmark 3: 79 seconds with the calculation using variables
Benchmark 4: 119 seconds with the calculation using constants
Benchmark 5: 180 seconds when adding an empty subroutine call
Benchmark 6: 298 seconds with the DIM and an additional empty loop
Benchmark 7: 398 seconds when assigning values to the DIM'd array
By now we can see that CreatiVision BASIC actually suffers a lot, and we brace ourselves for the final benchmark with the logarithm and trigonometric functions that all other computers get stuck at...
Benchmark 8: 120 seconds!!!! Suddenly the CreatiVision springs to life, and handles those K^2, LOG(K) and SIN(K) like there was no tomorrow.
I don't bother calculating an average, as it doesn't say very much and would anyway put it at the very bottom, but we learn one thing: to not be afraid of using aritmethic, logarithmic or trigonometric functions with CreatiVision BASIC as those are where it really shines. Regular loops, subroutines, assignments etc is what slows it down, as far as I can tell.
In a few days, I might run this suite on my Laser 2001. Perhaps someone else with e.g. a Salora Manager will get ahead of me. I expect it to perform fairly well. It reminds me that the source where I got the majority of benchmark numbers also had a row for IBM PC 4.77 MHz but at some point I omitted it as it is not a true 8-bit computer.