🚀 go-pugleaf

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

: > Joe Ragosta wrote:
: > : 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.

curious. the Pentium@100 gets a 2.66,whatever that means, but the P6@200
gets no better than a 4? Very curious indeed.

: > : 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.

I did. They did not compare P6 and 604 boxes. You keep on telling me to
look at Byte, which I did, and there was nothing there. 604 is a nice chip,
"faster" than a P6? no. 

: -- 
: 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.