Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!web-1g.berkeley.edu!c60b-1eq
From: c60b-1eq@web-1g.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Why buy a DX over an SX?
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.123813.10913@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 91 12:38:13 GMT
References: <14534@encore.Encore.COM> <1991Apr9.235803.25607@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr11.204600.15805@val.com>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 18

In article <1991Apr11.204600.15805@val.com> ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) writes:
>c60b-1eq@e260-3e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes:
>>First of all--don't post Norton SI results as serious statistics.  Norton SI
>>is a very vague measurement of overall system performance, not the CPU's
>>performance.
>It is also misleading to consider only raw CPU performance.  After
>all it is the system as a whole that matters when you shop for a machine.
>Norton's SI is just a number, but is is the only measurement of overall
>performance that is popular enough to have statistical significance.

True, but this thread of messages was concerning CPU's, not complete
systems.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| Noam Mendelson   ..!agate!ucbvax!web!c60b-1eq | "I haven't lost my mind, |
| c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU                     |  it's backed up on tape  |
| University of California at Berkeley          |  somewhere."             |