🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TcHHoB4w164w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> chrisr@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Chris Ringe) writes:
>I would like to remind you that you are comparing a 486/50 to a 040/25.  
>Have you though to compare a processor on equal MHZ?  Sure, you could say 
>that the 486 is faster, but you neglect to say how fast the 040/50 is!
>
>Not to mention that the 486/50 has heating problems, whereas the 040/50 
>doesn't. (as far as I've heard).
>
>I am not trying to start a war, 'cus I too have a 486/33dx.
>
>Chris.
>
>< SIG on Summer Holidays!! >

I just looked at the BYTE mag.  Yep, its a Moto(BIAS?) ad of the Quadra 950/900
comparisons to a 486 running windows 3.0!  The results were something like
this 9.7, 9.3 for Quadra 950,900, and for the 486, 8.1 and 6.5 for the 486 33/50
, the bottom line is that it was windows 3.0, I wish they used a comparable
OS such as a true 32-BIT OS (eg. OS/2).  I did not neglect to say how fast the
040/50 is, and to mention something as the 040-50 would be pointless because
what machine has it (Mac? no, AMIGA? they don't even have the 040 out as
standard on their high end machine.  ATARI? no).
Here it is as I know it:  040-33 = 486-50  (From looking at other benches)
			  040-25 = 486-33
As soon as these guys stop putting windows 3.0 (not even 3.1) comparisons
up and put up a real 32-BIT OS, then their benchmarks will be meaningless
to me.  They stress on Windows 3.0 because they know its the weak point
that slows a good 32-BIT computer down (we all know this), this is a
marketing strategy to allow their comparisons to seem quite excellent to
prove their "Moto" cpu is better.