Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!uupsi!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: MIPS (was Re: NeXT Press Release) Message-ID: <1991Apr30.114430.2859@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 30 Apr 91 11:44:30 GMT References: <1991Apr24.135141.21417@convex.com> <1991Apr28.125055.13965@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Apr28.145704.12706@hubcap.clemson.edu> Distribution: comp Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 14 In article <1991Apr28.145704.12706@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) writes: > peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <1991Apr24.135141.21417@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > >That's like claiming your bicycle is as good as a car because it can keep up > >with an ailing VW Beetle. The SPARC is at best a mediocre RISC chip. Try > >comparing it to the 88000 or the MIPS. > OK! Again, just for the record... (taken from comp.arch) Yep. The CISC guys are consistently slower than the RISC guys, and not by just a few percent. And you're not even counting the Snake. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .