Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???

Article View: comp.sys.powerpc

Article #2750

#2750

From: Chad Irby
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 07:23

26 lines
1550 bytes

Robert Salasidis (salasidis@medcor.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: 
: The Intel benchmark error was only for the SpecInt92 #s, the SpecInt95 
: and fp were accurate.

Were they?

Gee- after Intel managed to make their "reference compiler" run 10% 
faster with a "bug," it kinda makes you wonder just how much of their 
benchmark-generating code is designed to do nothing else but run 
benchmarks. 

The whole idea of the Spec benchmarks was supposed to be a non-fudgable 
result, right?

Put it simply.  Intel cheated on Spec92.  What makes you think they were 
honest in running the code for Spec95?

You know, for years people have been saying that Intel machines turned 
out real-world results much slower than their supposed "benchmark" 
numbers would indicate.  There's your answer.

-- 

Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4d7mln$f940@hopi.gate.net>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gate.net!not-for-mail

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gate.net!not-for-mail
From: cirby@gate.net (Chad Irby)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600
Subject: Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???
Followup-To: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600
Date: 13 Jan 1996 02:23:35 -0500
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.
Message-ID: <4d7mln$f940@hopi.gate.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hopi.gate.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]