🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Salasidis <salasidis@medcor.mcgill.ca> wrote:

>David Lawson wrote:
>> 
>> In article <30F193AD.4733@medcor.mcgill.ca>, Robert Salasidis
>> <salasidis@medcor.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> > Nobody argues that the PPC is faster in floating point. However for most
>> > users, 99% of the time is spent in integer functions. Integer benchmarks
>> > show that there is very little diffeence between the 2 processors (and
>> > at least the x86 camp has a Pentium Pro to upgrade to today).
>> 
>> Hmm... I guess all those PowerMac 9500's in the lab only have virtual
>> 604's... pretty neat trick.
>> 

>I am not sure what the point is? However if your application requires >25-30% of your
>processing time to be spent in floating point then a PPC is faster for your use than a
>Pentium (or a Pentium Pro even). My point is that for the rest of us (which is 99% of the
>population), the Pentium is faster, cheaper, has more software, and most of the R&D $ being
>spent today on new hardware and software occur for the X86 architecture (as an example, even
>though the Mac has PCI slots, how many PCI board manufacturers - esp video - release the Mac
>drivers at the same time as the PC/Win drivers).

>>
>> (Everyone forgets that they're comparing 200MHz PPro's to 132MHz 604's.
>> There will be faster 604's...)

>I am not forgaetting anything, I am making a point, I can buy a 200 MHz Pentium Pro if I want
>to (I haven't because like most I am waiting for the price to drop).
>By the time a faster 604 is available, so will a faster Pentium Pro (300 MHz being the
>projected maximum frequency for the design).

didn't I mention the RISC 620 is 410 mhz?