Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!thorin!glycine!chen
From: chen@glycine.cs.unc.edu (Super Dave)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Apple IIGS Rules! (vs IBM and Mac)
Message-ID: <13950@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 6 May 90 01:35:53 GMT
References: <900505.18161082.042392@UWEC.CP6>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: chen@glycine.UUCP (Super Dave)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 37

In article <900505.18161082.042392@UWEC.CP6> S707503@UWEC.BITNET (MARK RINECK) writes:
>In response to comments by Lyle @ netcom.UUCP:
>
>[But a IIgs with it's stock 2.8 mhz, is faster than
>most TURBO XT's, and the same as many Stock ATs.  It is also faster than a Mac
>Plus, and in ways, comparable to a Mac SE.]

>What? Are you nuts? As far as that goes, a Mac SE running Microsoft Word
>4.0 (which ain't no little program) is a lot, lot faster than Appleworks
>GS! Of course MIPS is a better test for speed, but still, there is NO
>way a 2.8 MHZ machine is going to be faster than an 8 Mhz consistently.
>(there are always special exceptions...etc.)

I don't want to be Mr. Nit-Pick, but a 2.8 Mhz machine could easily
beat the pants off a 8 Mhz machine.  Compare Sun's SPARC vs. Intel's
80386.  Sun 4's typically run at 16 to 25 Mhz, while you can get 80386's
going 33-50 Mhz.  But, there's no way a 386 machine is gonna come close
to the SPARC machine.  The reason is that the Sun averages less than
2 cycles per instruction, while the 386, being the CISC beast that it
is averages, a lot more.  I dunno off the top of my head but I would guess
5 or more cycles per instruction.  And then there are the instructions
like multiply that can take 20-30 cycles (again a guess).  So the key
is number of instructions per second, not number of cycles per second.

Heck, while I'm being Mr. RISC, let me just say that people saying how
CISC is catching up with RISC are full of it.  The Intel 80486 and
the Motorola 68040 are as fast as the current SPARC chip, but it takes
the CISC chips > 1 million transistors to do it.  The SPARC is about
100,000 transistors.  They should be comparing these CISC chips to
the Intel i860 which is quoted as being 40 MIPS using about the same
number of transistors.

Dave "Don't Get Me Started" Chen
_________________________David_T._Chen_(chen@cs.unc.edu)_______________________
Thunderstick?...  You actually said 'Thunderstick'?...  
That, my friend, is a Winchester 30.06.
		-- The Far Side, by Gary Larson