Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!calgary!cpsc!datta
From: datta@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Slarti)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Perceptions of speed (was Re: MIP rating for the Mac II)
Message-ID: <2376@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jan 90 18:19:22 GMT
References: <2785@mtuno.ATT.COM> <2600001@hpislx.HP.COM>
Sender: news@calgary.UUCP
Reply-To: datta@cs-sun-fsb.UUCP (Slarti)
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Lines: 14

In article <2600001@hpislx.HP.COM> bayes@hpislx.HP.COM (Scott Bayes) writes:
>Actually a "MIP" is useless for almost any purpose, meaning, as it does,
>"Machine Instruction Per".  The singular term (e.g. 1 MIPS) is "MIPS":
>"Machine Instruction Per Second". This is not to say that the plural is
>"MIPSs" :-)
>

Actually, the term MIPS stands for "Million Instructions Per Second".  A 6
MIPS machine would be useless if it executed six instructions per second.
That's where the problems arise.  A 68030 instruction is worth more than
a SPARC instruction because it can do more.  So, just going by MIPS is not
a valid comparison unless you are comparing two computers with the same
CPUs.  The only real way to compare the speeds of machines is to do 
benchmarks.