🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <771@sce.carleton.ca> greg@sce.UUCP (Greg Franks) writes:
>In article <3300098@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>
>>Here's a rhetorical question:
>>
>>When was the last time someone introduced a new CISC architecture?
>>How many years has it been?  New versions of old chips ('486, '040,
>>etc) do not count as "new architectures".
>
>The big players in the microprocessor wars are busy souping up their
>existing CISC processors all of the time, so why would they bother
>concocting new ones.  People sure like having the latest CPU on their
>desk to run lotus 123 or MacDraw.  Furthermore, with the lastest CISC
>processors reaching into the domain of the RISC processors in terms of
>performance (eg, 68040 @ 25 MHz being faster than SPARC @ 25 MHz
>according to Byte), 
My Byte's are in the middle of the input stack.  Could someone please
post the DATA that shows a 68040 @ 25Mhz to be faster than a SPARC @ 25Mhz?
(yes, I've seen the Motorola ads that show the 68040 to be 20 mips versus
a SPARC's 18.... :-)  

On the good side of reality, plaudits to UNIX/World, which has started
publishing SPEC numbers (full charts) in some of its workstation comparisons.
-- 
-john mashey	DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP: 	{ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash  OR  mash@mips.com
DDD:  	408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253
USPS: 	MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086