🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30FD210E.63B4@globaldialog.com>, David Scidmore
<davids@globaldialog.com> wrote:

***Major Snippage****
>> 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?
>
>Prior to the release of the Pentium Pro Intel only refered to 133Mhz and 150Mhz
>parts. These are the ones that the Byte benchmarks are based on. When the part
>was released it was released at much higher clock frequencies, 150Mhz and
200Mhz.
>Give Byte some time and they will release new benchmarks. I am as interested
>to see how these will turn out as anyone.
 
In the latest Byte, they publish Bytemarks for the Intergraph
multiprocessor PPro-200 machine. I can't recall the exact numbers, but
they are about what one would predict based on scaling the 133 and 150 Mhz
part Bytemarks up to 200 Mhz. So it seems that the large-scale differences
between Spec95/92 and Bytemarks also apply with the faster (200 Mhz) parts
as well.



>One of the reasons I generated the original post (to a PC list) is that it
>seems the press have given up on the Pentium Pro. If you watch Computer
Shopper,
>Byte, or PC Magazine there is very little said on the subject. It's almost as
>if these magazines ran their initial benchmarks with 133Mhz Pentium Pro's,
>found lack luster 16 bit code performance and decided the processor was
>irrelevent. The unexpected release of 200Mhz processors and the accompanying
>performance increase stike me as very exceiting news for PC owners, yet have
>received little notice in the press.
>
>-- 
>David Scidmore
>davids@globaldialog.com

-- 
ted.oliver@asu.edu