Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!swarren
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: MIPS (was Re: NeXT Press Release)
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.135141.21417@convex.com>
Date: 24 Apr 91 13:51:41 GMT
References: <72561@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1991Apr24.043828.7213@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <aodGmk7x1@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: newsadm@convex.com (news access account)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 69
Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.convex.com

In article <aodGmk7x1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
>
>In article <1991Apr24.043828.7213@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) writes:
>
>
>   [awesome specs for the 68040 deleted]
>	
>   Looks like this CISC chip is right in there with all those RISC chips and
>   you don't have to make any allowances like re-writing your code :-)
>
>
>Look at the SPECmarks that were posted earlier yesterday.  They're
>more indicative of the actual performance.

I saw the SPECmarks numbers.  What conclusion are you drawing from them?
It looked to me like the 68040 beat the SPARC more than the SPARC beat the
68040.  But for the most part they were roughly comparable.  In fact, their
performance was amazingly similar, considering the disparity in architecture
of the two CPUs.  This is right in line with the statement above, that
"...this CISC chip is right in there with all those RISC chips..."

>                                     ...  By this time next year,
>MIPS will have a 50 mip processor that only runs at 25MHz.

OK, but the same argument applies to the R4000 that applies to the 68040, that
is, it ain't here 'till it's here.  BTW, the R4000 is a 64 bit CPU, so it is
not surprising that it can double the performance figures at the same clock
rates.  I am sure that a "son-of-SPARC" machine in a 64-bit incarnation would
come in in the same ballpark, if slightly lower.  Ditto for the analogous hot
64-bit CISC machine that would incorporate the kind of design philosophy that
was behind the 68040.  There is no magic bullet.  The same performance
enhancing architectural features can be added to most families and the result
will be similar performance boosts.  It *is* true that the more complex
instruction set of the 680X0 family means that it takes more silicon to do it.

But no doubt the R4000 will be a really sweet engine.

>                                     ...  HP has a
>RISC chip in their Snake machines that SPECS at 54.  It costs around
>$12,000.  The 68040 SPECs at around 12 or 13.

Then HP will probably rule the world in a year or 2.  ;^) (emphasis on smily)

>The i860 is a RISC chip.  Look at its benchmarks sometime.

The i860 has a lot of problems, too.  The OEMs that are incorporating the i860
into their designs are having problems, from what I understand.

>Also, quit writing your code in assembler.  That's not how it's done
>anymore.  The Amiga doesn't have enough good professional software as
>it is.

Yes sir, anything else, sir?   ;^)

>         What's going to happen when everyone switches to RISC
>chips(NeXT is going to), but Commodore can't because all of the Amiga
>software software is written in assembler?

I believe the rumors of the death of CISC are a little premature.  But we'll
all see in another year or two.  Markets are shaking out big-time this year.

>
>-Mike

            _.
--Steve   ._||__      DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own.
  Warren   v\ *|     ----------------------------------------------
             V       {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com
--