Article View: comp.sys.powerpc
Article #2838Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???
From: WILLIAM C YU
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 18:17
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 18:17
24 lines
1502 bytes
1502 bytes
Chad Irby (cirby@gate.net) wrote: : The whole idea of the Spec benchmarks was supposed to be a non-fudgable : result, right? Which fantasy world did you come from? : Put it simply. Intel cheated on Spec92. What makes you think they were : honest in running the code for Spec95? Everybody cheats at benchmarking. As I recall, the rule of the Spec benchmark is (roughly) "anything goes". Think about it carefully -- if a benchmark had restrictions on what types of instructions and optimizations are allowable, how could anyone produce a fair set of guidelines? : 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. Earth to Chad. The Spec benchmarks have never been an accurate representation of real world work for any architecture. What the Spec numbers show is the maximum theoretical performance of a machine.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4dgq46$so5@news.csus.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!csus.edu!taurus!will_yuReferences:
<4d7mln$f940@hopi.gate.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!csus.edu!taurus!will_yu From: will_yu@sfsu.edu (WILLIAM C YU) 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....??? Date: 16 Jan 1996 18:17:42 GMT Organization: San Francisco State University Message-ID: <4dgq46$so5@news.csus.edu> References: <4d7mln$f940@hopi.gate.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: will_yu@taurus.sfsu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]