Xref: utzoo comp.sys.m68k:1765 comp.arch:17208
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zds-ux!gerry
From: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Moto's data predicts 68040 performance well below 20 MIPS
Message-ID: <382@zds-ux.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jul 90 15:29:25 GMT
References: <1990Jul13.163849.4282@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <6535.26a0e67f@vax1.tcd.ie> <713@obs.unige.ch>
Reply-To: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Followup-To: comp.sys.m68k
Organization: Zenith Data Systems
Lines: 22

In article <713@obs.unige.ch> bartho@obs.unige.ch (PAUL BARTHOLDI, OBSERVATOIRE DE GENEVE) writes:
>In article <6535.26a0e67f@vax1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes:
>> In article <1990Jul13.163849.4282@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, fox@VIXEN.NSCL.MSU.EDU writes:
>>> 
>>> For much of the stuff we run, 16Mhz 68020 + 68881 runs at about .8 VAX
>>> mips. (Scientific technical applications). So it seems to me that
>>> 25Mhz could be no faster than 25/16 * .8 = 1.25 VAX mips.
 
>> Sounds like either we don't agree on what VAX MIPS mean or there's something
>> seriously wrong with your system or benchmarks. The 68000 at 8MHz is rated at

I'd go with confusion over what "MIPS" measures.

>We have a vax 780 with FPA (== 1 MIPS) and sun 3/60 at 16 MHz with 68881, that
>is the same configuration as above.  All my comparisions show the sun to be
>between .5 and .8 of the vax for pure computational tasks (no io).  One 

MIPS is a measure of integer CPU performance, so I wonder why people are
being so careful to tell us about the floating point hardware.  If you want
to talk floating point, the metric is MFLOPS, not MIPS.

Gerry Gleason