Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC -- SPECmarks Message-ID: <1991Apr27.004627.27205@neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 27 Apr 91 00:46:27 GMT References: <1991Apr22.044553.16805@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Apr24.170804.25670@kithrup.COM> <1991Apr24.181932.17810@cs.cornell.edu> <1991Apr26.074427.4703@kithrup.COM> Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 35 melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Some of us are just trying to understand the full impact of RISC so we >don't have to listen to all of the marketing hype like RISC is "good" >and CISC is "bad". In other words, we want to understand why RISC, >and in particular the one that NeXT is probably going to use(the 88K), >is actually better than CISC. We could move it to comp.arch, but this >has been a lightweight discussion so far. >In fact, how does the 88K compare to the 68040 in performance? Well, the Harris Night Hawk is a 25MHz 88000 based machine, and its Spec results are as follows: GCC: 22.80 Spice: 13.44 Esp: 20.98 Dod: 11.94 Li: 19.83 Nasa7: 16.20 Eqn: 16.94 Mat: 21.45 Fppp: 18.64 Tom: 14.55 SpecInt: 20.02 SpecFP: 15.73 Overall SpecMark: 17.32 I think the previous figures given for the 040 were more like 11.x? Given that the 88K has been out for over 2 and a bit years, and it's due for a 3x performance upgrade later this year with the 88110, it's not hard to see why NeXT would like to run with the 88110. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And in the death, as the last few corpses lay rotting in the slimy thoroughfare, the shutters lifted in inches, high on Poacher's Hill..."