Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-barr!decwrl!shelby!neon!rathmann
From: rathmann@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Peter K. Rathmann)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: R6000 vs BIT SPARC
Message-ID: <1989Nov22.233508.20446@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 22 Nov 89 23:35:08 GMT
References: <1989Nov21.015953.13817@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <14900002@hpdml93.HP.COM>
Sender: USENET News System <news@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: rathmann@eclipse.Stanford.EDU (Peter K. Rathmann)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 14

Ok, R6000 vs BIT SPARC is too early to call, but other comparisons
might be even more interesting.  The R6000 based system was billed in
the popular press as a mainframe, so does anyone have any numbers
comparing it to more typical mainframes like the IBM 3090 or big
Amdahl machines?

Extrapolating from the xfroot numbers indicates that the R6000 should
be pretty competitive, at least for floating point.  Has anyone checked
it for a business data processing mix of databases and COBOL?

If the R6000 can compete with classic mainframes on their home ground,
I might start believing this talk about killer micros.

						-Peter