Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: How do we change the scheduler? (Was Re: Multitasking at home...)
Message-ID: <17908@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 22 Jan 91 18:35:22 GMT
References: <42731@ut-emx.uucp> <1991Jan19.035418.15192@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <42792@ut-emx.uucp> <1991Jan20.042633.16661@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <42828@ut-emx.uucp>
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 28

In article <42828@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes:

>>to compare the best of both worlds, compare a 25MHz 68040 with a 25MHz 486 and
>>you will find that the 486 is half as powerful.

>Given the leap-frogging nature of chips, I've never considered the best at any
>particular time a good comparison of machines.  I figure the 030 and the 486 are
>the chips to compare 

Given similarly creative systems around them, an '030 + '882 does roughly 1/2 
the amount of work that a '486 does at the same speed, integer-wise, and maybe
1/3 the work, floating-point wise.  For example, Personal Workstation found the
HP 50MHz 68030 machines to run just a tad faster than similarly equipped 25MHz 
80486 machines.  Under UNIX, at least.  Of course, a good 50MHz system is much
more expensive to build than a good 25MHz system, which is why a more modern
chip architecture, like the '486 or '040, can approach the cost of an older
system of similar performance even before the price on the new parts starts
dropping (you don't really see this in the PClone market, since there aren't 
any 50MHz '386s to compare to the 25MHz '486s).

>(and I still wouldn't take a 486 running Windows over an 030 Amiga or Mac.)

Pointing out, of course, that CPU speed isn't the whole ball of wax.  

-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
	"What works for me might work for you"	-Jimmy Buffett