Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!kuling!irf
From: irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide')
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: $/CPUmark is a worthless measure
Message-ID: <2013@kuling.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 91 17:12:49 GMT
References: <2004@kuling.UUCP> <32580014@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> <1991Apr3.010831.3603@ico.isc.com>
Reply-To: irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide')
Organization: Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden
Lines: 24

In article <1991Apr3.010831.3603@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>I guess I've seen one too many comments like...
>> But I wouldn't hesitate to use $/SPECint as a performance measure...
>
>$/SPECmark, or $/any-CPU-benchmark, is about as useful for comparing
>systems as lines-of-code/day for comparing programmers, and both are
>about as useful as manure output for measuring the work done by horses.
>They're no better than order-of-magnitude, and they stink.

Who says you compare systems by comparing the cost of a workstation per
whatever *mark is appropriate for the user -- you compare PRICES.

If some people don't give a damn about having to pay $100,000+ for a
workstation that has the same (or, even worse) overall performance 
as another workstation at 1/10 of the price it's their problem.  
At least I find such price info very useful.  It opens my eyes for
the cheaper of the two. 

On the other hand, if a person responsible for computer procurement
always buys the cheapest system around regardless of performance or
buys the fastest system regardless of price I think that person
should look for another job.

Bo