Thread View: comp.sys.powerpc
9 messages
9 total messages
Started by Marlin Frederick, Jr.
Sun, 03 Sep 1995 21:34
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Marlin Frederick, Jr.
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 1995 21:34
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 1995 21:34
19 lines
1297 bytes
1297 bytes
ejohnso2@swarthmore.edu (Ellen S. Johnson) wrote: > >SPECint92: approximately 200 SPECint92: approximately 133 >SPECfp92: approximately 200 SPECfp92: approximately 105 > >If that's not "a commanding speed advantage", what is? There are two problems with quoting these numbers for determining the relative performance of two processors. First these numbers are wrong. Second the system a processor is in makes a huge difference when determining performance. Intel is famous for its Intel Xpress Box. This is nothing but a bogus system designed to maximize the Intel performance numbers for Spec marks. Really there is a third flaw. Very few developers do as good a job optimizing thier software for the hardware as the people running these Spec test do. -- Marlin Frederick, Jr. marlin@bga.com
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Harlan W. Stockman
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 00:17
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 00:17
19 lines
1462 bytes
1462 bytes
marlin@bga.com (Marlin Frederick, Jr.) wrote: >ejohnso2@swarthmore.edu (Ellen S. Johnson) wrote: >> >>SPECint92: approximately 200 SPECint92: approximately 133 >>SPECfp92: approximately 200 SPECfp92: approximately 105 >> >performance. Intel is famous for its Intel Xpress Box. This is nothing but >a bogus system designed to maximize the Intel performance numbers for Spec >marks. Really there is a third flaw. Very few developers do as good a job >optimizing thier software for the hardware as the people running these Spec >test do. And IBM (Apply by proxy) is famous for quoting calculated SPECint on hypothetical systems with 2 MB L2 cache with no wait states. I'd bet that many inexpensive commercial Pentium systems, based on the Triton chip set and pipeline burst cache and EDO RAM, can now best the performance of the Intel Xpress box.
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Harlan W. Stockman
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 00:17
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 00:17
19 lines
1462 bytes
1462 bytes
marlin@bga.com (Marlin Frederick, Jr.) wrote: >ejohnso2@swarthmore.edu (Ellen S. Johnson) wrote: >> >>SPECint92: approximately 200 SPECint92: approximately 133 >>SPECfp92: approximately 200 SPECfp92: approximately 105 >> >performance. Intel is famous for its Intel Xpress Box. This is nothing but >a bogus system designed to maximize the Intel performance numbers for Spec >marks. Really there is a third flaw. Very few developers do as good a job >optimizing thier software for the hardware as the people running these Spec >test do. And IBM (Apply by proxy) is famous for quoting calculated SPECint on hypothetical systems with 2 MB L2 cache with no wait states. I'd bet that many inexpensive commercial Pentium systems, based on the Triton chip set and pipeline burst cache and EDO RAM, can now best the performance of the Intel Xpress box.
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Alan Lovejoy
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 04:46
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 04:46
33 lines
1568 bytes
1568 bytes
In <42dgil$1o6@sloth.swcp.com> "Harlan W. Stockman" <hwstock@swcp.com> writes: > >marlin@bga.com (Marlin Frederick, Jr.) wrote: >>ejohnso2@swarthmore.edu (Ellen S. Johnson) wrote: >>> >>>SPECint92: approximately 200 SPECint92: approximately 133 >>>SPECfp92: approximately 200 SPECfp92: approximately 105 >>> > >>performance. Intel is famous for its Intel Xpress Box. This is nothing but >>a bogus system designed to maximize the Intel performance numbers for Spec >>marks. Really there is a third flaw. Very few developers do as good a job >>optimizing thier software for the hardware as the people running these Spec >>test do. > >And IBM (Apply by proxy) is famous for quoting calculated SPECint on >hypothetical systems with 2 MB L2 cache with no wait states. > >I'd bet that many inexpensive commercial Pentium systems, based on the >Triton chip set and pipeline burst cache and EDO RAM, can now best the >performance of the Intel Xpress box. > As soon as they do, I'm sure Intel will stop quoting results from the XPress on its WWW site :-)
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Harlan W. Stockman
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 14:30
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 14:30
8 lines
981 bytes
981 bytes
>>Triton chip set and pipeline burst cache and EDO RAM, can now best the >>performance of the Intel Xpress box. >As soon as they do, I'm sure Intel will stop quoting results from the >XPress on its WWW site :-) As sson as SPEC becomes OS-independent, and the Intel compilers run on something other than SCO Unix, I'm sure they will.
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Maynard Handley
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 19:00
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 19:00
54 lines
2926 bytes
2926 bytes
In article <42dgil$1o6@sloth.swcp.com> Harlan W. Stockman, hwstock@swcp.com writes: >marlin@bga.com (Marlin Frederick, Jr.) wrote: >>ejohnso2@swarthmore.edu (Ellen S. Johnson) wrote: >>> >>>SPECint92: approximately 200 SPECint92: approximately 133 >>>SPECfp92: approximately 200 SPECfp92: approximately 105 >>> > >>performance. Intel is famous for its Intel Xpress Box. This is nothing but >>a bogus system designed to maximize the Intel performance numbers for Spec >>marks. Really there is a third flaw. Very few developers do as good a job >>optimizing thier software for the hardware as the people running these Spec >>test do. > >And IBM (Apply by proxy) is famous for quoting calculated SPECint on >hypothetical systems with 2 MB L2 cache with no wait states. > >I'd bet that many inexpensive commercial Pentium systems, based on the >Triton chip set and pipeline burst cache and EDO RAM, can now best the >performance of the Intel Xpress box. > Here are the IBM SPEC92 figures Model 40P 42W/T 42W/T 43P-100 43P-120 43P-133 Technology PowPC PowPC PowPC PowPC PowPC PowPC Processor 604 604 604 604 604 604 MHz 120 120 120 100 120 133 I-cache 16 16 16 16 16 16 D-cache 16 16 16 16 16 16 Ext cache (MB) 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 Performance(1) SPECint92 147.3 118.2 150.2 128.1 157.9 176.4 SPECfp92 132.9 116.5 146.5 120.2 139.2 156.5 SPECbase_int92 121.1 95.2 121.8 104.3 127.1 142.2 SPECbase_fp92 120.7 106.4 133.5 104.8 129.0 146.2 Note that not one of these use a 2MB L2 cache. IBM systems are considered (by those who really care about memory bandwidth) to have the bext memory bandwidth available for workstations making them the machines of choice when working on very large arrays or on code with very poor data locality. Maynard Handley . . . . .
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Jeff Rugen
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 14:27
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 14:27
30 lines
2092 bytes
2092 bytes
Harlan W. Stockman (hwstock@swcp.com) wrote: : marlin@bga.com (Marlin Frederick, Jr.) wrote: : >ejohnso2@swarthmore.edu (Ellen S. Johnson) wrote: : >> : >>SPECint92: approximately 200 SPECint92: approximately 133 : >>SPECfp92: approximately 200 SPECfp92: approximately 105 : >> : >performance. Intel is famous for its Intel Xpress Box. This is nothing but : >a bogus system designed to maximize the Intel performance numbers for Spec : >marks. Really there is a third flaw. Very few developers do as good a job : >optimizing thier software for the hardware as the people running these Spec : >test do. : And IBM (Apply by proxy) is famous for quoting calculated SPECint on : hypothetical systems with 2 MB L2 cache with no wait states. : I'd bet that many inexpensive commercial Pentium systems, based on the : Triton chip set and pipeline burst cache and EDO RAM, can now best the : performance of the Intel Xpress box. Heh - you think if they'd done that, someone would have bragged about it by now. Go back to sleep. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Rugen __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____ jrugen@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ / Motorola GSTG / / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ / -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Andreas Helke
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 16:24
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 16:24
39 lines
2302 bytes
2302 bytes
jrugen@primenet.com (Jeff Rugen) writes: >Harlan W. Stockman (hwstock@swcp.com) wrote: >: marlin@bga.com (Marlin Frederick, Jr.) wrote: >: >ejohnso2@swarthmore.edu (Ellen S. Johnson) wrote: >: >> >: >>SPECint92: approximately 200 SPECint92: approximately 133 >: >>SPECfp92: approximately 200 SPECfp92: approximately 105 >: >> >: >performance. Intel is famous for its Intel Xpress Box. This is nothing but >: >a bogus system designed to maximize the Intel performance numbers for Spec >: >marks. Really there is a third flaw. Very few developers do as good a job >: >optimizing thier software for the hardware as the people running these Spec >: >test do. You can buy in in the form of a server PC from several OEM manufacturers. I think HP is among them.. >: And IBM (Apply by proxy) is famous for quoting calculated SPECint on >: hypothetical systems with 2 MB L2 cache with no wait states. >: I'd bet that many inexpensive commercial Pentium systems, based on the >: Triton chip set and pipeline burst cache and EDO RAM, can now best the >: performance of the Intel Xpress box. >Heh - you think if they'd done that, someone would have bragged about it >by now. Go back to sleep. There is a considerable speed between the typical low cost mainbords. The better ones probably come close to the performance of the XXpress mainboard. Andreas -- * Andreas Helke, Institut fuer molekulare Genetik, Universitaet Heidelberg ** Im Neuenheimer Feld 230, 69122 Heidelberg, Germany *** http://orion.mgen.uni-heidelberg.de **** ftp://orion.mgen.uni-heidelberg.de - filemanager and Unix tools for DOS
Re: Debate: PowerMac
Author: Brent S. Stone
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 01:49
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 01:49
32 lines
2003 bytes
2003 bytes
In article <42dgil$1o6@sloth.swcp.com>, Harlan W. Stockman <hwstock@swcp.com> wrote: >marlin@bga.com (Marlin Frederick, Jr.) wrote: >>ejohnso2@swarthmore.edu (Ellen S. Johnson) wrote: >>> >>>SPECint92: approximately 200 SPECint92: approximately 133 >>>SPECfp92: approximately 200 SPECfp92: approximately 105 >>> > >>performance. Intel is famous for its Intel Xpress Box. This is nothing but >>a bogus system designed to maximize the Intel performance numbers for Spec >>marks. Really there is a third flaw. Very few developers do as good a job >>optimizing thier software for the hardware as the people running these Spec >>test do. > >And IBM (Apply by proxy) is famous for quoting calculated SPECint on >hypothetical systems with 2 MB L2 cache with no wait states. IBM has posted SpecInt92, SpecFP92 figures for all the systems it sells. Motorola on the other hand is posting esimated Specmarks for all PPC chips, and no Spec #'s for its powerstacks. >I'd bet that many inexpensive commercial Pentium systems, based on the >Triton chip set and pipeline burst cache and EDO RAM, can now best the >performance of the Intel Xpress box. And you don't know what Spec marks the Triton boards produce because no commercial x86 system manufacturer releases Spec marks for their systems. I'd take the bet considering Intel would obviously post the highest marks they could obtain on any x86 system.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads