[Info-vax] VUPS.COM relevance for modern CPUs

[Mark Daniel]

On 20/12/2022 10:43 pm, Volker Halle wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> on my Intel i5-9600K @3.7 GHz with 6 Cores, Windows 10 Pro 22H2 with VMware Player 16, running my VUPS.COM reports about 730 VUPS with VSI OpenVMS x86-64 V9.2 with 2 vCPUs.

Nice.  Perhaps a little more than AU$300.00 :-}  Mine a paltry 280 VUPs.

I'm looking forward to retiring my PWS for the Dell (or something 
equivalent); 145W x 24hr x 365 days, cf. 15W idle 35W processing.

> $ MONI MODE/INT=1/AVERAGE reports about 10% Kernel, 21% Exec and 51% Supervisor mode while running VUPS.COM
> 
> Running a simple LOOP.COM
> 
> $ i=0
> $loop:
> $ i=i+1
> $ GOTO loop
> 
> consumes 22% Kernel, 33% Exec and 45% Supervisor mode
> 
> Running the same LOOP.COM procedure on an OpenVMS V8.2 rx2600 1.3 GHz (1 CPU) consumes: 8% Kernel, 31% Exec and 61% Supervisor mode.
> Running VUPS.COM on that Itanium reports about 1762 VUPS with 5% Kernel, 17% Exec and 77% Supervisor mode.
> 
> The 'CPU work' is done in Supervisor mode in a small loop in VUPS.COM, Exec and Kernel could be considered (necessary) 'overhead' and this 'overhead' is more significant on x86-64.
> 
> AFAIK VSI has not yet publicized any performance data and may still be concentrating on function vs. performance.
> 
> Volker.

Again, thanks to all who contributed.  Unfortunately, I thoughtlessly 
began this thread at the wrong end of the year.  I'll be occupied with 
other things for a couple of weeks.

> The 'CPU work' is done in Supervisor mode in a small loop in VUPS.COM, Exec and Kernel could be considered (necessary) 'overhead' and this 'overhead' is more significant on x86-64.
> 
> AFAIK VSI has not yet publicized any performance data and may still be concentrating on function vs. performance.

Understand these comments, made by several posters.  Not trying to say 
anything about the X86 port, per se.  Just trying to get a *feel* for 
the relative performance/behaviour of the respective platforms 
(including X86).

My summary...

The loop described above

$ i=0
$loop:
$ i=i+1
$ GOTO loop

is the essence of VUPS.COM and seems as good a finger-in-the-air as any 
other.  Just forget the "VUPS" as a unit and compare with other 
platforms as the measure.

Using the above DCL and MON MODES/INT=1/AVE, my X86 shows

|Combined for  2 CPUs
| Kernel Mode                 26 |▒▒▒▒▒
| Executive Mode              26 |▒▒▒▒▒
| Supervisor Mode             43 |▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
| Idle Time                  103 |▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

after a couple of minutes.  The PWS 500

| Executive Mode              26 |▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
| Supervisor Mode             70 |▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
| Idle Time                    3 |▒

And the RX2600

|Combined for  4 CPUs
| Executive Mode              28 |▒▒
| Supervisor Mode             61 |▒▒▒▒▒▒
| User Mode                    4 |
| Idle Time                  299 |▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

And the reported @VUPS.COM "VUPs" correspond to expected platform 
performance.

Approximate System VUPs Rating : 286.6 ( min: 285.4 max: 287.8 )
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 135.8 ( min: 135.8 max: 135.8 )
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 486.3 ( min: 483.8 max: 488.8 )

This also shows the (granted, unoptimised) X86 performance to be 
none-too-shoddy, especially for AU$300.00

I withdraw the bogoVUPs.c suggestion.

-- 
Anyone, who using social-media, forms an opinion regarding anything 
other than the relative cuteness of this or that puppy-dog, needs 
seriously to examine their critical thinking.