🚀 go-pugleaf

garb@ix.netcom.com(Garby Leon) wrote:
>Forwarded from pc-daw@flux.mindspring.com
>
>To: pc-daw@flux.mindspring.com
>From: David Scidmore <davids@globaldialog.com>
>Subject: PcDaw- Re: pc-daw V1 #85
>Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 23:25:44 -0600
>David Scidmore <davids@globaldialog.com>
>
>The 200Mhz Pentium Pro Spec benchmarks (8.09 SPECint95) show that on 32
>bit code, it's integer performance beats anything now available,
>including the 300Mhz Dec Alpha (7.33 Specint95) and 133Mhz Power PC 604
>(4.07 SPECint95). It even beats the estimated performance of any Power
>PC chip yet talked about including the new PowerPC 620 (225 Specin92).
>Too add insult to injury, some industry analysts that have taken an
>in-depth look at the architecture and are speculating that the
>architecture will support clock frequencies nearly twice as high as
>those released. It may be possible that Intel is sandbagging on Pentium
>Pro performance in order to keep sales of Pentiums strong.
>
>You have to be quick to keep up with the Microprocessor market.
>The Byte benchmarks and the PC magazine benchmarks are last years news.
>For more information check out the performance section of Intels Web
>site at:
>

It IS entirely possible that Intel is sandbagging on the CPU clock.

However, the debate that has been raging is:

WHY are the Pentium Pro SPECint/fpXX scores so high in comparison to the 
PowerPC and other CPU's, when the BYTEMark scores are so low comparing 
the same systems?


Simply referring us to the half of the figures that happen to favor 
Intel doesn't resolve the issue. We KNOW that Intel beats the pants off 
of PowerPC's and many other CPU's on SPEC. 

But why is there such a HUGE difference between the SPEC and the BYTE?


Lawson