Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!mcnc!idis!dan From: dan@idis.UUCP (Dan Strick) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Re: 80286 benchmarks + mild flame Message-ID: <282@idis.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Apr-84 20:11:35 EDT Article-I.D.: idis.282 Posted: Mon Apr 30 20:11:35 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 1-May-84 19:24:28 EDT References: <7000059@uicsl.UUCP> <1201@sdccs7.UUCP> <2072@ut-sally.UUCP> omsvax.882 Lines: 34 Pardon me if I have erroneously jumped to the obvious conclusion that the numbers uicsl!keller reported in his usenet news article (uicsl.7000059) mean that Intel is trying to give the impression that typical iAPX 286 systems are roughly twice as fast as typical VAX 11/780 systems for some reasonably large subset of typical applications. I haven't seen the article in the March 1984 issue of IEEE Spectrum which contains these numbers. I have seen the advertisements on page 67 of the February 1983 issue of MINI-MICRO SYSTEMS and page 252 of the June 1983 issue of MINI-MICRO SYSTEMS. I saw stuff like "three times the performance of what you thought was the fastest chip in the market." I saw bar charts that showed the 80286 to be roughly equivalent to three 68000s or one VAX 11/780. The fine print is irrelevant when the average reader doesn't know if the stated system configurations are typical or what the benchmarks really are. The unmistakable implication of the February advertisement was that the 80286 was generally available at that time as was the 68000 and that the typical 80286 system would run a typical cpu bound application about three times as fast as a typical 68000 system. None of this was true then. 80286 systems are just now becoming generally available and actual measurements I made of a 5 MHz 80286 system running with an unknown number of wait states suggest that 8 MHz 80286 systems running with zero wait states will be about as fast as 10 MHz 68000 systems running with zero wait states (which have been available for the last year or so). I have reviewed the article I posted nine days ago (idis.280) which omsvax!plb finds so objectionable and I stand by it. I never said that Intel had fibbed about the benchmarks. I did say that the Intel marketing department had been publishing misleading benchmarks. If Mr. Barrett had looked at my article carefully, he would have noticed that it said absolutely nothing about any conclusions that uicsl!keller may have drawn from the benchmarks. Daniel R. Strick [decvax|mcnc]!idis!dan