🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9211231414.AA26779@TIS.COM> tmplee@TIS.COM (Theodore Lee) writes:
> 
> Fascinating.  I am finding it very hard to locate *any* published
> cross-platform benchmarks that compare 486's to Macintosh's in
> meaningfully comparable applications, such as wordprocessing.  So far
> I've only located two.  Does anyone know about any others?
> 
> The first one I found is in PC Magazine for May 12, 1992, which
> compares a $7,000 Quadra 700 to a $9,275 Dell PowerLine 450DE
> (80486-50 cpu).  The latter has a 4MB cache in its EISA controller!
> (The article says the Dell is running Windows, but the article is not
> at all clear whether the applications are Windows applications or DOS
> applications>.
> 
> The other is in the Dec. 23/30, 1991 issue of PC Week.  (The one
> mentioned in the current Mac ads in Scientific American, for
> instance.) It compares a $8,500 Quadra 900 against a Compaq 486/50L of
> no specified price and few other details about the configuration.
> (That one at least made clear it was using MS Word for Windows.)
> 
> Again, is anyone aware of any other published benchmarks comparing
> Mac's to Intel boxes?
> 
> >From the meagre bits of information in the PC Week article, I conclude
> that the current mid-range Mac (the IIvx) is of roughly equal or
> better price/performance than all of the current 486DX2/50's, using
> the exhaustive (and very informative) benchmarks of 24 of the latter
> in the Oct. PCWorld.  The price/performance ratios of the 24
> platforms, not counting the PS/2, but counting the Mac, have a 2:1
> range, whereas the prices have a 3:1 range. (If you plot price vs.
> performance you see very little correlation.) 21 of the 486's have a
> worse p-p-ratio than the Mac, and it is only 12% worse than the best.
> (The only 486 in the 24 faster than the Mac was only 5% faster but 30%
> more expensive; nearly half of them were more expensive than the Mac)
> 
> To make the price comparisons fair I included a "works" package
> (Microsoft or Claris) and WordPerfect, since most of the PC's come
> with the former & I need the latter.  But I'm not confident in the
> analysis since I computed the Mac's relative performance on the
> assumption that the Compaq 486/50L in PC Week has roughly the same
> performance as the Compaq Deskpro 486/50M in PC World and that the
> Quadra 900 & 950 have roughly the same performance.  *If* the 50L is
> the same or faster than the 50M, and if the 950 is the same or faster
> than the 900, then the IIvx is at least as good as I've figured;
> otherwise I could be all wet. (I've seen one anecodotal report claiming
> the 950 is 30% faster than the 900, and if the 486/50L is a true 50MHz
> machine and not a DX2 it would very likely be faster than the 50M.  Time
> for a return trip to the library.)
> 
> Ted Lee <tmplee@TIS.COM>

Try running the matlab set of benchmarks on both of them.....

Jon