It's conceivable that some code in this
benchmark consists of 16-bit instructions.
Such instructions run slower on a Pentium
Pro, I think, than a Pentium of the same clock
rate. This is the reason that the Pro isn't really
recommended for running Windows 95, because
Windows 95 retains a significant amount of
old 16-bit code. That doesn't mean that the Pro
won't run Windows 95 fast, it just means that
it's cheaper to get the same performance with
a fast Pentium. 

This is just an idea - I know nothing about 
this benchmark program.

Greg.
>----------
>From: 	Gregory Boduch[SMTP:gb141@columbia.edu]
>Sent: 	Monday, April 21, 1997 6:05 AM
>To: 	csound@noether.ex.ac.uk
>Subject: 	Re: Pentium Pro cooks fast!
>
><>
>Robin Whittle wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I can't compare its performance to a Pentium, but it runs rings
>> around the 486 100 MHz which I have been using for over a year.
>> It is between 5.6 and 6 times the speed!
>> 
>
>As a side note, there seems to be a problem with the Pentium Pro cpu. A
>Linux benchmark called Oscillates,  which simply tries to send as many
>wavetable-lookup oscillators as it can to the dsp, returns a score of 42
>oscillators on a P200 w/ 32Meg, 36 oscilators on a P166 MMX, and only
>28 on a PPro 200 w/ 32Meg and 27 on a dual PPro 180 w/ 32Meg.
>
>Any thoughts? The code for the benchmark by Dave Topper is included.
>
>GB
>
>