🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4j4bl3$5ah@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, veakblad@Glue.umd.edu
(David T. Wang) wrote:

> Joe Ragosta (jragosta@dca.net) wrote:
> : On Byte Benchmarks, PPC beats Pentium.
> 
> right.
> 
> : On HINT Benchmarks, PPC beats Pentium.
> 
> Joe, still claiming this? I still get confused looking at the HINT page,
> you're ofcourse comparing the 3.47 of the 132 MHz 9500 to the 120 Mhz
> Pentium?  I hope you're not still doing the 604 beats the P6 thing.

As I've stated several times. I received a personal communication from
Ames Lab. The 9500 reached 5.9. The best they've been able to do with a P6
is around 4. You can e-mail them for details.

> 
> : On Windows NT running commercial applications, PPC beats Pentium.
> 
> now you're really smoking those funny weeds again. must I remind you that
> the article you quoted out of Byte didn't compare any X86 NT apps to 
> PPC NT apps, or to any P6 box? Byte compared the machines to each other 
> and to other RISC boxes. No Pentiums were involved.  The only thing that
> Byte used to judge speed were those lovely Bytemarks from number 1 above.
> here are the two relevent graphics

Wrong-o. Look at the November, 1995 Byte Magazine. They compared P6 and
604 boxes running commercial apps under WinNT. The 604 won easily.

-- 
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.