🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <AV87t=y00V4IyRA2MW@andrew.cmu.edu> rs4u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Richard Siegel) writes:
>
>There were also some technical inaccuracies in the benchmarks. Notice
>that they listed the Mac SE with HyperCharger having a 68881 clocked
>at 7.833 MHZ. This is not true -- the '881 in the HyperCharger is clocked
>at 12 MHz, and I understand GCC's going to kick it up to 16 MHz real soon.
>
>Also, they listed the plain Macintosh as having a math chip.
>
>Do these guys not know what they're talking about, or what?
>
>		--Rich

The 68881 was trimmed down to about 8Mhz in order to have it a valid 
comparison seeing as the 80287 ran at 8Mhz.  But even then it was unfair
to the Compaq seeing as they were using the "old" model which used this
older FPU.  Also Mac had cacheing where new Deskpro's has integrated.
If this was a fair comparison should have had the 80387 in the new deskpro
(6 times faster than 80287) and configured compaq with equal cache.
Code on the Mac was compiled using a 68020 C compiler.  So the Compaq was
actually at a disadvantage seeing as it was not able to use their nice
new 32 bit FPU where the Mac was and the Mac could speed up some of the
disk action with it's cache and the Compaq was unable because they use
older daekpro.  I would say that if this would done you would even be
more disapointed in the resaults.  Must remember that Mac's have a 
definate disadvantage when it comes to many benchmarks, putting the 
CPU asside most systems offload the processes conserning gaining data from
the disk, Mac's do not.  Saving grace on a Mac II is you have slots and 
can add a card to do this off load processing.  
	What it comes down to is Intel has FINALLY made a good chip, it
DOES outperform the 68020 at equal clock speed.   I am more interested in 
the next generation the 486 vs the 030, that should be very interesting.

 
-- 
Steven Goodman
Lake Systems   Milwaukee, Wisconsin
UUCP:  {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!steven