Uh. See, this is a misunderstanding of the SPEC rules. In other words, they ran an unoptimized build (except for maybe /O2).(4) They did not tweak the system in any way, they just ran SPEC CPU2000_base like described in the SPEC rules (the same compiler switches in all tests.
Thank you. That's EXACTLY why you don't want your SPEC numbers coming out of gcc. It's not that Intel's C compiler is so much better (though Intel does make an excellent reference compiler). It's that the compiler is designed by people who know EXACTLY what optimizations are possible with the chip and chipset, and they write compilers which expose those features. And notably, I seriously doubt that "c't magazine" could reproduce those high Intel scores, even WITH the reference compiler. It's a lot more complicated than booting single-user and running the test. Running gcc on both systems doesn't tell you much at all, because it could just be that gcc optimizes better on Intel than on Motorola chips.(5) Thy ran SPECint_base on a PIII 1GHz with gcc 2.95.3 for x86 for comparison and they got 309 SPECint_base. Intel C would deliver much better results (see SPEC webpage)