🚀 go-pugleaf

Joe Ragosta wrote:
> 
> In article <4j93ij$1ir@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, veakblad@Glue.umd.edu
> (David T. Wang) wrote:
> 
> > Joe Ragosta (jragosta@dca.net) wrote:
> > : 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.
> 
> You didn't look very hard, then. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
> 
> http://www.byte.com/art/9511/sec9/art1.htm
> 
> The headline reads:
> 
> "Faster than P6 and Mips, slower than Alpha, the PowerPC 604 makes a
> mean NT workstation"
> 
> Is the problem that you can't read or that you think everyone else is too
> stupid to check a reference?
> 

No need to get nasty.

There's an addendum to the above-mentioned article, in both December '95
and February '96 issue of Byte.  They discuss a bug (more of a
non-optimal malloc library routine) which caused poor ByteMark
performance to be given for the Intel machines.  There are revised
figures available in the latter article showing better performance for
the P6.  

I think it's important to know which compiler (with which optimizations
turned on) and which system (core logic, cache, memory, bus) are used
before one can truly judge performance/benchmark comparisons. IMHO.

Peace,

Tetsuji Ueda
----------------------------
My other computer is a Cray!
----------------------------