Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tilt.FUN
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!down!tilt!chenr
From: chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro,net.micro.pc,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Need 286 "C" benchmark
Message-ID: <296@tilt.FUN>
Date: Sun, 26-May-85 23:46:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: tilt.296
Posted: Sun May 26 23:46:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 04:16:25 EDT
References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP> <583@intelca.UUCP> <433@oakhill.UUCP> <588@intelca.UUCP>
Reply-To: chenr@tilt.UUCP (Ray Chen)
Organization: Princeton University EECS Dept
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.arch:1258 net.micro:10523 net.micro.pc:4049 net.micro.68k:805
Summary: 

In article <588@intelca.UUCP> kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) writes:
>> int a[50000];
>> 
>> main()
>> {
>>   int i;
>>   for (i=0; i<50000; i++) a[i+1] = a[i];
>> }
>> 
>> Dave Trissel    {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
>Hmmm, once again Dave has submitted a benchmark that requires more than 64K
>of data.  This continued harping on the issue seems to indicate to me that
>maybe Dave realizes that for programs that require less than 64K of data
>that a 12MHz 286 actually keeps pace with the 16.67 MHz 68020.  Of course,
>he might not be saying this at all, and far be it for ME to try to read
>between his lines of code....

Hmmm.  An interesting example of creative bullshitting.  Instead of
saying, "Oh, God, we're so SLOW when we handle > 64K data..." you say
"We're so FAST when we handle < 64K data; we can even keep up with
our competition then..."

Defending Intel against the question, "Why should 286 users pay a
performance penalty if their programs require > 64K data?" might
look better than sniping at your competitor just because he has the
intelligence to point out an obvious architectural "feature".

	Ray Chen
	princeton!tilt!chenr