🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42007@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) writes:
>
>The 6280, and when I was given permission to share this bit of data I was
>also told to inform you that this was a preliminary result on a pre-production
>machine, has run at 3.3 times the performance of the XMP 4/16 CPU on a SCALAR
>packet switched network simulator.
>
	Was the code running on the XMP/YMP optimized to the Cray architecture
	as much as the code running on the R6000 was optimized to the MIPS
	architecture? How much time was spent on both in order to get to
	the code that gave the results above? Hmmm, I seem to remember the
	Cray's being touted for their VECTOR capability in addition to
	"respectable" SCALAR performance. Can the 6000 do seamless vector
	operations too?

	Just asking if comparing Apples to Oranges and saying Apples are better
	is a valid claim?

	Also, with appologys to DEC and Cray:

	Cray has it now...
	
	While I'm using my spare pocket change millions for other things
	right now, B^), one generally buys a high powered system for
	many reasons. The overall performance of the whole system, CPU,
	memory, I/O, networking strongly influences the sale of a system. I'd be
	interested to see the R6000 system that can beat a Cray in
	memory, I/O and networking bandwidth.

	My main reason for responding to this excited article is that
	I find it disturbing that ALOT of people pay attention only to
	MIPS, or only one aspect of a system, and not to full systems as a
	whole. To over simplify: 

	A CPU is only as fast as it's slowest sub-system.

		Just some musings,

			-Rob

#include <std/disclaimers.h>

I speak for myself and noone else.