Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zds-ux!gerry
From: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Price/Performance of DECsystems
Keywords: Price/Performance, DECsystem 5400, DECsystem 5810
Message-ID: <290@zds-ux.UUCP>
Date: 1 May 90 18:27:15 GMT
References: <414@dg.dg.com> <38407@mips.mips.COM>
Reply-To: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Distribution: na
Organization: Zenith Data Systems
Lines: 23

In article <38407@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>In article <414@dg.dg.com> publius@dg-pag.webo.dg.com (Publius) writes:
>>Maybe I am just being naive, but I just don't understand this.
>>A DECsystem 5400 has the SPECmark of 11.8, and the base listed price
>>is $30,000.  A DECsystem 5810 has the SPECmark of 11.3, and the base
>>listed price is $75,000.  Why is a system that has a lower SPECmark
>>selling for TWO AND A HALF times of the price of a system with a
>>higher SPECmark?  Can anyone give me an answer?

>Pay for the weight. :-)

Something like AT&T's 3b line, the 3b2, 3b5 and 3b15 were all base
on the 32100 chip set.  The 3b2's were basically desktops with a
more or less minimal I/O bus, but the 5 and 15 were meant to be
higher performance systems, and had more "advanced" I/O systems
(and of course more room for boards, disks, etc.), but advanced
almost always turns out to be just complex with longer development
cycles for follow ons.  Pretty soon not only were the 3b2's smaller
and cheaper to make, but they were faster as well.

It seems that the industry needs to keep learning this lesson.

Gerry Gleason