Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: MIPs, But really IDC numbers
Message-ID: <387@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 04:05:36 EST
Article-I.D.: oakhill.387
Posted: Tue Apr 16 04:05:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Apr-85 23:07:33 EST
References: <> <nmtvax.408>
Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 18

In article <408@nmtvax.UUCP> blaine@nmtvax.UUCP ( Gaither) writes:
>
>IDC usually does not rate non-IBM architectures, but is often asked to do
>so by CW(they are sister companies).  When you see "CW estimate" in 
>in Computerworld, it means that IDC has refused to give them numbers for that
>system. God knows how CW comes up with their estimates when IDC refuses to
>give them an estimate, but its probably by the same process that IDC uses.
>

Indeed, during the 1983 CW listing of superminis I noticed that two systems
were MC68000 based running at the same clock frequency and yet one had twice
the MIPS rating as the other.  It turns out one system had tandom MC68000s
for fault-tolerant capability, yet CW figured that meant that it had double
the performance. Of course, both probably had equal or near equal performance.


Motorola Semiconductor Inc.           Dave Trissel
Austin, Texas                {seismo,ihnp4,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill