Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utai.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!indra
From: indra@utai.UUCP (Mad as hell)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Re: AT vs Z-100 - a myth
Message-ID: <536@utai.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 00:10:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: utai.536
Posted: Mon Jun  3 00:10:32 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 00:47:33 EDT
References: <11183@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 22

> 
> The point of all this Z-100 vs. IBM-AT is an attempt to uncover the
> reasons that the Z-100 at $1799 at 5MHz performs as well, if not better
> than the IBM-AT at >$4000 at 6MHz, all with current stock manufacturer
> supported capability.    The normal observer would think that the AT,
> at 6MHz with a 16-bit CPU would surely outperform a Z-100 with a 5MHz
> 8/16-bit CPU.   But, as exemplified by these messages, this is not
> the case.
> 
> It is, as you stated, a case to justify the hardware commitment.  It is
> also to inform and document info that may be used in source selection
> of computer equipment.   I want to say a lot more, but I can not from
> my position.   
> 
> Cheers,
> Gern
> -------

Why do these guys compare two computers by their BASIC interpreter?
How many people on the net use basic anyway?  So why don't we get serious
for once and do benchmarks in assembler, using anything else doesn't show
a thing, except possibly, efficiency of interpreter/compiler.