Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ames.arc.nasa.gov!lamaster From: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: MIPS/MFLOPS ratio Message-ID: <27771@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Date: 29 Jun 89 18:28:15 GMT References: <596@megatek.UUCP> <140@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center Lines: 33 In article <140@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom) writes: >Question is: Is a 3-4 MIPS/MFLOPS balanced? I personally like a balance of scalar MFLOPS = 1/3 of MIPS and vector MFLOPS = 3* MIPS. The reasons are manifold, but I have found this to be a "cost effective" ratio on older ECL discrete/SSI/MSI vector mainframe systems. More recently, folks in the RISC camp have been saying that this ratio is "obsolete", in the sense that the "extra" scalar MIPS are almost free relative to the cost of providing the extra MFLOPS, so a lower ratio is more appropriate. It appears to me that MIPSCO is doing about the best that can be done with the new R3xxx chips, so I am *not* complaining. But I still think that a vector instruction set provides a cheap way to get the most out of the existing floating point real estate, and can improve performance significantly, using the *same* floating point units, over a machine with only a scalar instruction set. Usually a speedup of about 5 is possible in this case, so I would now like to see MIPS = vector MFLOPS and scalar MFLOPS 1/5 of MIPS. For the purpose of comparing microprocessors, I am satisfied to define MIPS as the ratio of harmonic means of many integer benchmarks relative to their times on a VAX 11/780. And vector MFLOPS as the time on the standard LINPACK benchmark. Thanks to Weitek, MIPSCO, Fairchild/Intergraph, et al. for raising the standard of floating point performance in the micro world. Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117