🚀 go-pugleaf

Speaking from MIPS, mash@mips.UUCP (John Mashey) writes:
>     ...looking at the measure (units of real performance) per Mhz,
>you some idea of architectural efficiency, i.e., smaller numbers are
>better, in that (cycle time) is likely to be a property of the technology,
>and hard to improve, at a given level of technology. 

Speaking from Fairchild, kissell@garth.UUCP (Kevin Kissell) writes:
> I don't understand how someone of John's sophistication can insist on
> repeating such a clearly fallacious argument.  The statement "cycle time
> is likely to be a property of the technology" is simply untrue...

I love it!  The Intel/Motorola wars have been fun, but I'm glad they're
temporarily in abeyance.  Onward with the RISC versus RISC wars!   B*}
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
(C) Copyright 1986 by John Gilmore.             May the Source be with you!