Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!uwslh!jiml
From: jiml@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (James E. Leinweber)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Moto's data predicts 68040 performance well below 20 MIPS
Message-ID: <1990Jul24.053600.8427@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 90 05:36:00 GMT
References: <40088@mips.mips.COM> <14900009@hpdmd48boi.hp.com> <13266@cbmvax.commodore.com> <40231@mips.mips.COM>
Organization: Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene
Lines: 18

paulr@mips.COM (Paul Richardson) writes:
>And do not forget that the Vax 11/780 is technically not a 1 mips machine.

Sigh.  I don't have hard data on the relative merits of Vax, IBM and other
MIPS, but I first started seeing this canard when some trade press 
idiot divided the clock rate by the average cycle count of the instruction
set.  This is, of course, totally bogus.  You have to pay attention to
the pipeline depth and weight the cycle counts according to relative
frequency of use, interlock delays, etc.  In short, on something the complexity
of a Vax, you have to run a performance benchmark.  I haven't kept up with
the SPEC ratings of IBM versus DEC boxes; would someone care to follow-up with
real numbers?

Jim Leinweber  (608)262-0736   State Lab. of Hygiene/U. of Wisconsin - Madison 
jiml@sente.slh.wisc.edu	       uunet!uwvax!uwslh!jiml        fax:(608)262-3257
-- 
Jim Leinweber  (608)262-0736   State Lab. of Hygiene/U. of Wisconsin - Madison 
jiml@sente.slh.wisc.edu	       uunet!uwvax!uwslh!jiml        fax:(608)262-3257