Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
From: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Controller Speed tests
Message-ID: <1410@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>
Date: 4 Dec 90 19:38:32 GMT
References: <6033@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst)
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn
Lines: 19

In article <6033@crash.cts.com> hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) writes:
>With 512 buffers, 1024, etc. My question is why do the need to show with
>different amount of buffers and why do people always pick the one with the
>most when comparing speeds?

Obviously the larger numbers are more adequate for advertising (larger,
higher, faster). There's one good reason for the large numbers since
they more resemble the raw speed of the hardware. With measuring real
application speed there are much more problems to evaluate. You have to
deal with different access patterns, CPU and bus load, pro and cons of
caching algorithms, etc., which might be too complicated to convince
(persuade ?) consumers to buy your product.


-- 
Michael van Elst
UUCP:     universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."