🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jdd.721687838@cdf.toronto.edu>, jdd@cdf.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes:
|> In <1698@niktow.canisius.edu> pavlov@niktow.canisius.edu (Greg Pavlov) writes:
|> 
|> >  The SPECint92 values seem somewhat low, in terms of processor MHz.  Any 
|> >  known reasons why ?  Essentially, our R3000-based systems, at 40 MHz, 
|> >  have a SPECint92 (measured by DEC) that is apx. 40% of an ALPHA-based 
|> >  system at 133 MHz.
|> 
|> There are two ways of making processors fast. One is making them do more
|> per clock cycle. The other is making them run at a higher clock rate.
|> 
|> DEC chose pretty much the latter approach.

After reviewing the Alpha performance claims, I had the feeling that the integer unit
did not really run at 133Mhz.  It looked to me that the floating point pipeline was
superpipelined at 133Mhz, but that the integer side ran at a more reasonable 66Mhz.  The
pipes can operate independently and I imagine be dispatched in parallel, hence the 
superscalar appelation. In my opinion, either DEC did a terrible job of code scheduling 
for their integer pipeline or its not really running at 133Mhz or 200Mhz as the case may
be.



Anyone who knows care to comment on this analysis?


-- 
=================================================================
Sam Fuller                                  sam@yosemite.dell.com
Software and Technical Strategy 	           (512) 338-8436
Dell Computer Corporation   1807 West Braker Ln, Austin, TX 78758
=================================================================