🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4isjnf$8ts@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, "Jason D. Malone"
<jdmalone@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:

> gupta@mrspock.mt.att.com (Arun Gupta) wrote:
> >On Byte benchmarks, my 7100/66 ( 601 PPC at 66 MHz, main bus 33 MHz)
> >runs at between 0.90 and 0.95 on integer benchmarks depending on
> >the level of optimization, on which the Dell XPS P-90 (Pentium 90 MHz, 
> >main bus 66 MHz) by definition scores 1.0.  On floating point
> >multiplication and division my PPC scores 1.2 .  On floating point
> >using the exp(), sin(), cos() functions, my PPC however, is 10-15
> >times slower than the Pentium.  I am told this is because of a rather
> >poor math library -- I will find out more about this as I update my
> >system software from the now-venerable System 7.1.2.
> 
> 
> First---I question this....Secondly, there's no way in hell
> that a PPC can remotely compare to the Pentium....look
> at the SPEC numbers, you will se.....BTW the upcoming
> 620 is expected to get a 4 (MUA HAHAH)

So, you question it. Who cares?

On Byte Benchmarks, PPC beats Pentium.
On HINT Benchmarks, PPC beats Pentium.
On Windows NT running commercial applications, PPC beats Pentium.
On your beloved SPEC, Pentium beats PPC.

Even on applications software tests using MacOS vs. Windows (which
introduces many sources of errror), PPC is always in the same ballpark as
Intel, and often better (if you're not using Microsoft apps, PPC is
_usually_ better than Pentium).

To say "there's no way in hell that a PPC can remotely compare to the
Pentium" clearly shows that you have no interest in the truth or verifying
facts. You're just trolling.

-- 
Regards,       Joe Ragosta

Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
license to distribute this post granted to any service provider 
except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per 
posting.