Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!rex!uflorida!bikini!bb From: bb@dolphin.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: HP9000 performance Message-ID: Date: 6 Feb 91 04:12:26 GMT References: <13092@sunquest.UUCP> <7370304@hpfcso.HP.COM> Sender: news@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU Organization: /cis/lightning0/bb/.organization Lines: 27 In-reply-to: mike@hpfcso.HP.COM's message of 5 Feb 91 16:47:42 GMT In article <7370304@hpfcso.HP.COM> mike@hpfcso.HP.COM (Mike McNelly) writes: > Your intuition is wrong. We've measured performance in as many > different ways as we could and from our tests we've found that > addressing mode balance and pipeline scheduling are far more important > than any new opcodes for overall performance. Early in the > development cycle for the 68040 products we conducted tests which used > the new opcodes to see if they gave us significant performance > improvement. Nope. Given that binary compatibility is very desirable > across the Series 300/400 line we decided to put our development > efforts instead into the areas which maintained compatibility and > which provided much greater performance gains on the 68040 > architecture. Neat! - and, thanks for taking the time to follow this up with me. I really appreciate it when a vendor (or their off-duty representative) takes the time to truly answer my question - and it turns out that the vendor has done the Right Thing(tm). -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu