🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jjusu$484@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> David T. Wang,
veakblad@Glue.umd.edu writes:
>Hint says that a system using a 120 MHz Pentium is approximately 23% slower
>than a 132 MHz Apple PMac 9500.  SPEC says that Integerwise, a system using
>the 120 MHz Pentium is 20% slower than a PPC604@133 Mhz. (floating point,
>the PPC604 is ~35% faster at this frequency comparison)  Remarkably, they
>seem to agree to a certain extent, about the relative speed of a PPC604
>chip (@132/3 MHz) vs a P5 @ 120 MHz.

FWIW, I've used Pentium's of all speeds, Pentium Pro 150's, PPC601's and
PPC604's. Based on everyday use, I've found the 601 corresponds to the P5
and the 604 to the P6. Each CPU's excels in some areas and not in others.
None of the cpu's has a decisive advantage over its contemporary. As
usual, the best CPU depends on what you want to do with it.

My personal feeling is that the PMac 9500/120 and 132 pretty much trounce
any of the Pentium systems I have. At home my 8100/80 seems on par with
my P5/90 (the Pentium has faster video with a Matrox Millennium, and
using a 2940 SCSI card gives it comparable raw disk speed).

My gut feeling is that most of the general business apps I have on our
net run just fine on 601's and Pentiums. For these, a 604 and P6 are
overkill. CPU intensive apps (SPSS, CodeWarror, Visual C++, PhotoShop,
various 3D tools) cook on the 604 and on the P6, but a very small
percentage of my users run them. 

Either way, I'm waiting for PPCP 604e systems and debugged P6/200+ MMx
systems before I buy my next personal box. I'll make the choice then. 

WT