Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu!mohan
From: mohan@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (mohan ramamurthy)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: Floating-point benchmark comparison
Message-ID: <1990Nov13.134928.2417@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 90 13:49:28 GMT
References: <1990Nov11.192917.20649@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <21720001@hpfcso.HP.COM>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 17

In article <21720001@hpfcso.HP.COM> mike@hpfcso.HP.COM (Mike McNelly) writes:
>As I asked once before in another notes group, please include system
>revisions and configuration information.  Otherwise the numbers do a
>disservice to the vendors and could mislead the readers.
>
>Mike McNelly
>mike@fc.hp.com

Yes, at some point, when I find some spare time, I'd like to write 
up a more detailed article explaining the different system configurations, 
compiler versions and the details of the computations, along with an
interpretation of the results.  But I don't believe any of that is going to
change the "ball-park" floating-point performance figures I have posted,
which is what most end-users wish to know.  I can see why Mr. Mike 
McNelly is not pleased with the posting, for no vendor likes to see its
machine near the bottom of a performance pile, but frankly, that is not
my problem.