Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay
From: lindsay@MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 386 machines are workstations?
Message-ID: <9465@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 30 May 90 17:35:37 GMT
References: <1990May20.170544.23997@xavax.com> <768@orthogo.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 28


In article <768@orthogo.UUCP> basti@orthogo.UUCP (Sebastian Wangnick) writes:
>Some benchmarking with the BYTE code from comp.sources.unix
>proved that indeed this 386-PC (33 MHz, 64KB RAM cache)
>outperformed the Apollo workstation:

>Dhrystones with registers [1/s]: 4250 5348
>Arithmetic with int [s]:         12.1  3.0
>Arithmetic with double [s]:        60  464
>Filesystem read [KB/s]            173  327
>Execl [s]:                        4.4  1.3
>Sort and other Unix utilities,
>   8 processes [s]:              50.3 10.5

>Now, I have been praising workstations and damning PC's a long time.
>But this last bench, which approximates my daily requirements best,
>scattered my prejudices to pieces.

You didn't say _which_ Apollo, or anything about its memory/cache/
disk/IO-load, so it's difficult to draw conclusions from your
experience.  From the Dhrystones, I'd guess it contains a 68020,
which is older technology than the 386.

Personally, I would be happy to describe ANY workstation containing a
386 (or 68020), as a workstation. And, of course, non-workstations
containing 386s (or 68020s) aren't workstations.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science