🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3159ADEE.41C6@aloss.cims.nyu.edu>, Tetsuji Ueda <ueda@aloss.cims.nyu.edu> writes:
|> 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.

Why do you think Joe is getting nasty?  David T. Wang's claim is
clearly erroneous.  Joe was trying to get to the root of David
T. Wang's problem.

|> 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.  

Nice try.  Here are the corrected figures:

Let's talk actual systems, not estimated processor benchmarks.
January 1996 Byte, Page 140 Graph "Raw Performance: The VIS-less Ultra
I".  Sorted in order of integer performance:
----------------------------------------
DeskStation Raptor 3 266 MHz Aplha 21164:                3.75, 4.49
IBM Personal Computer Power Series 850, 133 MHz PPC 604: 2.90, 2.92
Sun Ultra I Creator 3D Model 170 167 MHz UltraSparc:     2.18, 1.54
Intel Reference System, 150 MHz Pentium Pro:             2.10, 2.60
Netpower Fastseries MP 200 MHz Mips R4400:               2.03, 2.08

PPC 604 is faster than Pentium Pro, even though the PPro is running at
a higher clock speed.

|> 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.

Agreed.

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   cats@erinet.com