Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!littlei!intelhf!ichips!ichips!glew From: glew@pdx007.intel.com (Andy Glew) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Data General NEW AVIION machine Message-ID: Date: 17 Mar 91 14:30:37 GMT References: <40198@cup.portal.com> <1991Mar14.134319.22796@news.larc.nasa.gov>, <1991Mar16.073539.823@berlioz.nsc.com> Sender: news@omews63.intel.com (News Account) Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon Lines: 31 In-Reply-To: my@tern.nsc.com's message of 16 Mar 91 07:35:39 GMT > MIPS ratings of multiprocessor machines aren't necessarily meaningful. > If I have one task I want to run, that 115 MIPS machine is only one-fourth > that speed. (It is a four-processor system.) I agree with you. But I think that DG's target is multiuser system which support many users at the same time. That is quite a bit of difference from a super-desktop-personal-workstation which will probably benefit more from a high MIPS single processor system. I'm a super-desktop-personal-workstation user... Myself, I'd rather have several processors on my desk than a processor much more powerful than I already have. (Assuming memory, etc. okay) Why? Because I do mainly integer work, I frequently run multiple processes (or, at least, other people use the "spare cycles" of my workstation to run multiple CPU intensive processes, making my machine unusable), and, many of my "roll your own" applications that I write myself are trivially parallizable. Anticipating the flame war, I'll duck out for a while... -- --- Andy Glew, glew@ichips.intel.com Intel Corp., M/S JF1-19, 5200 NE Elam Young Parkway, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497 This is a private posting; it does not indicate opinions or positions of Intel Corp.