Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!talon.UCS.ORST.EDU!orstcs!prism!bostrov From: bostrov@prism.cs.orst.edu (Vareck Bostrom) Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC -- SPECmarks Message-ID: <1991Apr19.210605.5748@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> Keywords: MIPS are MEANINGLESS Sender: @lynx.CS.ORST.EDU Nntp-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept References: <8lbG1vdl1@cs.psu.edu> <1991Apr18.180538.1@sif.claremont.edu> <339@nic.cerf.net> Distribution: orst Date: Fri, 19 Apr 91 21:06:05 GMT In <339@nic.cerf.net> benseb@nic.cerf.net (Booker Bense) writes: >In article <1991Apr18.180538.1@sif.claremont.edu> greg@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes: >>In article , melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>> >>> In article <1991Apr17.192605.1@sif.claremont.edu> greg@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes: [ Stuff about Super Computers Deleted ] >>I would tend to disagree. I have a benchmark that I run periodically >>when I have the chance to get my hands on a new machine with a C compiler. [CISC performance stuff deleted] >- Getting performance out of the machine depends on alot more than >MIPS or even MFLOPS. The whole system has to be balanced, ie if you have a >fast chip , you have to have a fast disk , fast memory ,etc... The >only real test of a machine is to take code that you use and run it. [more stuff about balanced systems deleted] >[ Rational arguement about merging of RISC CISC designs deleted ] >- So in conclusion what you really need to measure is >price/(performance doing what I do ) I will agree with the stuff about the SPARCs poor graphic performance. Have you ever noticed that Sun-3's seem to do graphics and animation better than Sun-4's? The NeXT seems fast enough for me now (the 030 wasn't) until I try to do something like ray-traceing, then when I compare it to SPARC-2's and DEC 5000's, the 040 NeXT seems greatly underpowered. I don't worry about it too much, as I really don't have a NEED to have the trace done at any certain time. Too bad somebody doesn't come out with a iWARP coprocessing board for the cube, with compiler and everything. Put a supercomputer on your desk... AS much as an improvement as the 040 is over the 030, the windowing system on the NeXT still seems much slower than Xwindows on a SPARC 1 or Sun-3, and my cube seems to swap a hell of a lot (I only have 8mb, but the Suns I have worked with had only 8mb, and they did fine). I also notice that building large programs takes longer on the NeXT than on SPARC and MIPS based machines, though the resulting binaries appear to be about equal in speed (25 MHz SPARC vs 25 MHz 68040), as long as it wasn't a heavy FP type program. I certanily DON'T think the 68040 gets anywhere near 2.0 MFlops, let alone 3.3. Perhaps 1.4 on a good day. A floating point accellerator is needed on the NeXT for scientific applications. ωΝ - Vareck Bostrom bostrov@prism.cs.orst.edu - or - bostrov@gnu.ai.mit.edu >- Booker C. Bense >prefered: benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu "I think it's GOOD that everyone >NeXT Mail: benseb@next.sdsc.edu becomes food " - Hobbes