Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!um-math!sharkey!umich!dip.eecs.umich.edu!billms
From: billms@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Bill Mangione-Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: GOTO considered essential??
Message-ID: <662@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 89 13:28:25 GMT
References: <1989Oct27.050923.5294@ico.isc.com>
Sender: news@zippy.eecs.umich.edu
Reply-To: billms@dip.eecs.umich.edu.UUCP (Bill Mangione-Smith)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 24

In article <1989Oct27.050923.5294@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>The
>processor may be able to issue 5 instructions in some ideal cycle, but it
>does NOT run at 5 instructions/cycle for any believable piece of code!
>
>Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
>   ...No DOS.  UNIX.

In all of the writings I have seen, including the iccd paper, the stated
performance goal is something just over 1 instruction issued per clock.  To
do this with 'real' code, you obviously need a peak issue rate of over 1 
instruction per clock.  IBM, atleast the R&D types, doesn't seem to be
trying to fool anyone that the actual performance is anywhere near
4 or 5 instructions per clock. But then something like 1.3 instructions/clock
for *real live code* would be a big step up in performance anyway. 

Have you been talking to sales guys? Or which magazines are making these claims? 

bill mangione-smith
advanced computer architecture lab
university of michigan
ann arbor

billms@dip.eecs.umich.edu