Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:12082 comp.sys.m68k:2378 Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.m68k Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) Subject: Re: 68040 for 68030 substitution (question) Message-ID: <1991Jun13.193312.5935@neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University References: <43234@cup.portal.com> <1991Jun13.134546.25578@oakhill.sps.mot.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1991 19:33:12 GMT Lines: 19 In article <1991Jun13.134546.25578@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, jtr@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Reinhart) writes: |> Motorola categorically denies substance to Daystar performance claims |> attributed to Motorola and will post a thorough discussion of the erroneous |> |> and misleading data presented by Daystar. The summary of this discussion |> is that Daystar builds a warped set of conclusions (some are actually |> reasonable) based on data attributed Motorola that is WRONG. They know it |> is wrong as well but persist in this silly pursuit to justify not bringing |> a product to market and we strongly encourage anyone who reads the |> Daystar paper to take it with a strong grain of salt. Very interesting. I must admit to being surprised at their conclusions. An owner of a 68040 workstation told me it outperforms a DECstation 3100, despite the extra load of running Display PostScript. And I really don't believe a IIfx is in the same league as a DECstation 3100 as far as raw speed is concerned. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu