Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dg!mpogue
From: mpogue@dg.dg.com (Mike Pogue)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Price/Performance of DECsystems
Keywords: Price/Performance, DECsystem 5400, DECsystem 5810
Message-ID: <415@dg.dg.com>
Date: 1 May 90 14:12:19 GMT
References: <414@dg.dg.com> <38407@mips.mips.COM>
Reply-To: uunet!dg!mpogue (Mike Pogue)
Distribution: na
Organization: Data General, Westboro, MA.
Lines: 26

In article <38407@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>I believe you can find similar effects.  For example, unless I'm mistaken,
>a DG AV 410 costs >= an AV 310, but (according to most recently published
>SPEC data), has a lower SPEC rating.

  Correct.  The AV410 has basically the same processor and memory, but
provides additional capabilities that the 310 does not have:

	VME bus (2 6U slots)
	expandable graphics, up to 24b/p
	optional Z buffer capability
	optional second CPU

  Because of additional buffering involved in supporting all these 
additional options, access to memory is slightly slower, resulting in
a slightly higher SPECmark rating for the less configurable machine.
  This is more than made up for (at least on the SPEC programs) when you
add a second CPU.  (Of course, this gives you more SPECthruput, but not
more SPECmark performance.  In most cases, where you are running more than one
task, this is not important, and the machine will give the performance
you would expect with 2 processors).

Mike Pogue
Data General 

I speak for myself, not my employer....