Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!srcsip!pompeii!shankar
From: shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: specmarks
Message-ID: <36286@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 25 Oct 89 17:57:23 GMT
References: <327@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> <4420015@hpihoah.HP.COM>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Reply-To: shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Lines: 20

In article <4420015@hpihoah.HP.COM> fotland@hpihoah.HP.COM (David Fotland) writes:

>You could define an architectural figure of merit as Specmark/Clock freq.


I don't like this measure, since improved performance at the same processor
clock frequency does not take into account the possible range of clock
rates for the processor in question.  Two processors may not be constructible
at the same clock frequencies due to either processor architecture limitations,
or memory speeds.  I like Specmark/Memory Access Frequency better, though
this has problems too, off course.





---
Subash Shankar             Honeywell Systems & Research Center
voice: (612) 782 7558      US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418
shankar@src.honeywell.com  srcsip!shankar