Evaluation of computer architectures via test programs

Authors:
Samuel H. Fuller;Paul Shaman;David Lamb;William E. Burr
Affiliations:
Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;U.S. Army Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey
Venue:
AFIPS '77 Proceedings of the June 13-16, 1977, national computer conference
Year:
1977

Citing 5
Cited 4

Performance Evaluation and Monitoring

ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
ALGOL Sixty Compilation and Assessment

ALGOL Sixty Compilation and Assessment
Computer structures: Readings and examples (McGraw-Hill computer science series)

Computer structures: Readings and examples (McGraw-Hill computer science series)
Initial selection and screening of the CFA candidate computer architectures

AFIPS '77 Proceedings of the June 13-16, 1977, national computer conference
Life cycle cost models for comparing computer family architectures

AFIPS '77 Proceedings of the June 13-16, 1977, national computer conference

Overview of the military computer family architecture selection

AFIPS '77 Proceedings of the June 13-16, 1977, national computer conference
Initial selection and screening of the CFA candidate computer architectures

AFIPS '77 Proceedings of the June 13-16, 1977, national computer conference
An architectural research facility: ISP descriptions, simulation, data collection

AFIPS '77 Proceedings of the June 13-16, 1977, national computer conference
Life cycle cost models for comparing computer family architectures

AFIPS '77 Proceedings of the June 13-16, 1977, national computer conference

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This article presents the evaluation of the Computer Family Architecture (CFA) candidate architectures via a set of test programs. The measures used to rank the computer architectures were S, the size of the test program, and M and R, two measures designed to estimate the principal components contributing to the nominal execution speed of the architecture. Descriptions of the twelve test programs and definitions of the S, M, and R measures are included here. The statistical design of the assignment of test programs to programmers is also discussed. Each program was coded from two to four times on each machine to minimize the uncertainty due to programmer variability. The final results show that for all three measures (S, M, and R) the Interdata 8/32 is the superior architecture, followed closely by the PDP-11, and the IBM S/370 trailed by a significant margin.