🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec11.180118.105908@lexmark.com> songer@lexmark.com (Christopher Songer)  
writes:
> In article <1g7sq8INNggf@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the  
OVER-skeek!) writes:
> >lschultz@pdx255 (Leonard Schultz) writes:
> >
> >
> >The P5 (I hope this name sticks, pentium sucks!) may be superscalar,
> >but it is not available yet, now is it? How many more transistors does
> >it need to match the performance of a MIPS r4000? Which is already available!
> >IF the P5 makes its (claimed) performance figures, it wouldn't be in the
> >running for fastest chip if it was released tommorow!
> >
> 
> Still, Intel drives volumes high enough that while their chips may not be
> the fastest per transistor, they are often the fastest per dollar.

Price comparison:
	Intel 486, 50 MHz:	>US$ 400.- in thousands
	Sparc "Tsunami", 50 MHz	<US$ 80.- in thousands
in addition, the Tsunami only needs another four support chips plus RAM
for a complete system, while the 486 requires many more.

> Economy of Scale is very important here.

Yeah! That's why they should *not* stick with a monopolist like intel.

--
Volker Herminghaus-Shirai (vhs@qb.rhein-main.de)

Looks good on the outside, but -
	intel inside