🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1895@oakhill.UUCP> tomj@oakhill.UUCP (Tom Johnson) writes:
>2)  The ISSCC paper indicates a Dhrystone _1.1_ rating of 105,000 Dhrystones
>    at 50 MHz.  Why was the 1.1 version used?  

WARNING: (mild) flaming

Intel is (in)famous for this.  For some good (though biased!) comments
on this aspect of Intel marketing, see Motorola's Performance briefs
for the 680x0 series micros.  Over the years i have repeatedly been
shocked by Intel's peverse use of benchmarks.

Dhrystone 1.1 can have VERY special optimizations done to it to make it
run much faster than you would expect.
 
Remember that in this industry (currently) rule #2:
	If you are behind, promise everything and confuse everyone
	as much as possible.
By announcing this "fast" micro now, they will put doubts into everyone's
minds about using a different machine.  Later, when the part is "real",
it doesnt matter so much if it isn't really that great.  Just look at
initial promises of the 386 vs. reality.  There were a lot of people
who waited for it, rather than use the 68020 -- even though it caused
product delays.


Note that I am NOT saying that this (i860) is not a good chip.  I dont
know:
	[1] the specs
	[2] whether it is "real"!


- mike

PS: Disclaimer Disclaimer

>tomj@oakhill.UUCP
>Disclaimer:  Motorola does NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSE ANY OR ALL COMMENTS
>             CONTAINED HEREIN.  ALL THOUGHTS/COMMENTS ARE PURELY MY OWN.

ps: from who you appear to work for (Motorola), i suspect (but do not
imply!) that you already assumed what i wrote above, but could not say
it in those words without being blasted to death.  I, however, have no
(known to me) stake in this -- and have more friends who have worked
for Intel than Motorola.


-- 
From the bit bucket in the middle of the Pacific...

Mike Newton				newton@csvax.caltech.edu
Caltech Submillimeter Observatory	kahuna!newton@csvax.caltech.edu
Post Office Box 4339
Hilo Hawaii 96720			808 935 1909

	"Reality is a lie that hasn't been found out yet..."