Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!petunia!polyslo!jdudeck
From: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why The Move To RISC Architectures?  ('386 vs. RISC)
Message-ID: <2607b76e.5ca0@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 90 17:18:38 GMT
References: <28011@cup.portal.com> <40970054@hpindda.HP.COM>
Reply-To: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 13


In article <40970054@hpindda.HP.COM> kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) writes:
>nopers...   "MIPS are meaningless"
>
>First, I'd refer you to comp.arch, where this is talked about endlessly.

A few weeks ago I made the remark on the net that it seems meaningless to
compare RISC MIPS with CISC MIPS.  I was soundly rebutted by any number
of netters telling me that all the manufacturers use VAX MIPS
when rating their cpu's.  In other words, benchmarks are run for various
types of cpu-intensive applications, and the results are compared to the
same benchmarks on a VAX 11/780, which is the platinum standard by which
all cpu's are measured.

-- 
John Dudeck                           "You want to read the code closely..." 
jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu             -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching 
ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549          Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.