Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!caip!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: re:Floating point performance
Message-ID: <5100150@ccvaxa>
Date: Wed, 15-Oct-86 10:59:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.5100150
Posted: Wed Oct 15 10:59:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Oct-86 03:47:39 EDT
References: <3833@nsc.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:nsc.UUCP:3833:ccvaxa:5100150:000:1025
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Oct 15 09:59:00 1986


>> The final column gives some feel for how effective these
>> processor/co-processor (just processor for the T414)
>> combinations are at turning MFLOPS into usable floating
>> point performance.
>
>As one who has looked at the relative merits of various processors
>and coprocessors before making a selection, I am not at all concerned
>about "how effective [a] processor/co-processor combination[] [is] at
>turning MFLOPS into usable floating point performance."  The bottom
>line for an application is closely tied to the numbers in the "kWhets"
>column.  The real question is, "How fast will it run my application?"
>
>					Steve Rice

Well, not only that, but perhaps also "How much will it cost to run my
application?" Users don't care how effective an architecture is, they
only care what the final result is. People interested in design, however,
may be interested in the ratios, since a low performance product with
good figures of merit may show an approach that should be turned into
a high performance product.