Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!gilgalad From: gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Next, 40, Sparc, 2 Message-ID: <1990Nov21.060821.24378@engin.umich.edu> Date: 21 Nov 90 06:08:21 GMT References: <30017@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1990Nov19.173120.1@lucy.claremont.edu> Sender: news@engin.umich.edu (CAEN Netnews) Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor Lines: 74 In article <1990Nov19.173120.1@lucy.claremont.edu> jack@lucy.claremont.edu writes: >want to point out that NeXT users are not alone in thinking that the >SPARCStation 2 is not a particularly good computer for the money. The quotes >that follow are from UNIX Today!, November 12, 1990, page 88: > > It appears that Sun is able to come close to the integer > performance of our RS/6000, but to do so, they require a > 40-MHZ clock rate, versus the 20 MHz on our POWERStation 320 > ---Judy Radlinsky, IBM Hmmm... Well, I use SPARCs and RS/6000s every day. Both are exceedingly fast machines. > They're running that thing at 40 MHz generating 28 MIPS. > That's anemic. That's bad. That's terrible. > ---Paul Bemis, program manager, HP/Apollo Interesting quote from a company that produces 50 MHz 030 boxes. I do, however, agree that emphasis should be placed on reducing cycles per instruction as opposed to cranking up the clock rate. That's what the IBM RS/6000 was designed to do. They achieved their goal. > They're basically coming up to parity with the DECStation > 5000 now. And we're in the middle of our next generation of > product development. > ---Charlie Giorgetti, marketing manager, DEC Hmmm... I don't know about this one. I also use DECstations (3100s and 5000s) every day. Our 5000s are not currently set up in the optimal fashion, and this expresses itself in poor performance. > (Noting that the 2GX is still offering wireframe graphics). > That's just not something we view as competitive in the > graphics marketplace. (Talking about the 2GS and 2GT). They > don't have an affordable starting point. > ---Mark Perry, exec. v.p., Silcon Graphics Can't argue here. One needs one's box for next to nothing 8-) >At 40 MHz the SPARC Chip appears to close to the edge of its performance. How >much faster can you push the clock speed? 60 MHz? 80 MHz? Another problem is SPARC is not scalable only in clockrate. >when you begin to up the clock speeds you naturally raise the cost of the other >components and wind up with a more expensive system. Sun may be making a >mistake by sticking to the SPARC architecture. And while it is nice to be >binary compatiable, it can be the kiss of death (look at VAX/VMS which recently >embarked on a program for a new architecture). I think that it would mistake >for NeXT to stay with the 68XXX architecture (88XXX might be a good choice) for >very much longer. And NeXT has not, to my knowledge, made any public commitment >to staying with the 68XXX unlike SUN. Unlike SUN? I assume you are talking about Sun's statement that it will be going strictly SPARC. >For some users, there is a real need for speed. And I don't belive that 2 (or >even 3) machines at 15 MIPS is equal to a machine running at 30 MIPS. And for >some applications (weather simulations are just one) you need all the speed you >can get. However, right now, I think that 15 MIPS is adequate for the average >user (This could change with Open Systems). But if I were looking for a box at >about 25 Mips I would not get a SPARCStation 2. There are a number of other >Boxes (Magnum 3000, DECStation 5000, RISC/6000) that look at lot more attractive >in that price range. > >---Jack > >Jack@Hmcvax (Bitnet) >jack@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Internet) >jack@134.173.4.32 (also Internet) Ralph Seguin gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu 536 South Forest Apt. #915 gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 662-4805