🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20804@winchester.mips.COM>, mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
> In article <126@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom) writes:
> ....
> >I'm talking intuitively but I'ld say that these effects at least double 
> >the effect of the longer lead time. In other words, an incompatible processor
> >would have to offer at least 40-50% more performance for the same price before
> >you even to start to think about a change over (in an environment like ours).
> 
> Our general rule-of-thumb is that:
> 	10% is uninteresting
> 	50% is interesting to lots of people, although not others
> 	100% is interesting enough to make people take serious risks
> 	1000% is uninteresting to some people (really!), i.e.
> 		compatibility is everything.
> -- 

Sounds like it has gotten a bit easier to sell performance in the last
few years. I remember when I first went to work for MIPS in 1985, trying
to sell a 250% performance improvement (and that was just integer, FP was
even better) was a difficult chore. The 5 VUP MIPS product was being
sold against the 2 VUP 68020. But in 1985, we not only had to sell performance,
we had to sell the idea that a RISC architecture was a good thing. Fortunately,
*every* microprocessor introduced since 1985 is based on RISC*, so that
is not a missionary sell any longer.

* just ask the marketing folks

Jim Moore
Solbourne Computer, Inc.
{sun,boulder,nbires}!stan!jmoore  OR jmoore@solbourne.com