Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!uunet!dg!rec From: rec@dg.dg.com (Robert Cousins) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 88000 vs 3081. (long response) Message-ID: <213@dg.dg.com> Date: 2 Oct 89 13:53:17 GMT References: <21962@cup.portal.com> <1989Sep12.031453.22947@wolves.uucp> <22130@cup.portal.com> <1989Sep16.044013.429@wolves.uucp> Reply-To: uunet!dg!rec (Robert Cousins) Organization: Data General, Westboro, MA. Lines: 59 In article <1989Sep16.044013.429@wolves.uucp> ggw@wolves.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: > Getting the 88K as a co-processor and placing it in a "high- >performance" PC host (e.g. 33MHz '386 with 11MHz buss) costs significantly >less than getting the 88K workstation from DG (for example). We knew that Actually, this is not the case. In any apples to apples comparison you will see not only that an equivalently configured machine DG machine WITHOUT the PC costs less. Furthermore, there is a performance penalty incurred when the PC is required to perform I/O operations (especially high bandwidth ones such as graphics). >we could effectively use the 88K, but the budgets and things are such that >we can finagle a less expensive co-processor based machine several times, >whereas we cannot get the money together (all at once) to get the more >expensive workstation. > Yes, they (IBM and DEC - and all the rest, including DG) will >save the bandwidth and fast i/o for the *big iron* machines AND the >high-end "workstations". This is just what the main problem is! The If you decide that $8000 is high end, then you are right, but frankly, I think your facts need to double checked. There are currently only 4 DG 88k workstations which all have approximately the same I/O bandwidth. While I will admit that it is quite fast, the I/O performance of the low end is almost the same as the high end. The major difference is in CPU speed. >marketoids and management are so concerned in keeping the distinction >between certain types of machine, and they manipulate the prices in order >to do so, that they miss the boat. > Actually, as we research the "next" machine we are going to get, >some "workstations" are actually getting a real look. We are almost at the >point of deciding that we have enough compute power for the moment, and >we actually need a less number-cruncher of a machine in favor of a machine >that can do efficient DMA i/o and network management and maybe acting >as a file server. See my paper in the September Computer Architecture News on this very subject. DMA is a must for performance at any level whenever you have more than one task running at a time. > Sorry that this is so long, but this is of extreme interest >to me and some of my colleagues. >-- >Gregory G. Woodbury >Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC >UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] >Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu >Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) Robert Cousins Dept Mgr, Workstation Dev't Data General Corp Speaking for myself alone. >[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]