🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4de92u$ded@baygull.rtd.com> Lawson English <kensal@rtd.com> writes:

>
>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
>
>


You're using benchmarks that are out of date.  Check the comparative
web page cited in the original post.