Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Floating point performance & Mr. Mashey's Mythical Mhz
Message-ID: <1198@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Fri, 17-Oct-86 07:10:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1198
Posted: Fri Oct 17 07:10:59 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Oct-86 22:16:50 EDT
References: <340@euroies.UUCP> <1989@videovax.UUCP> <722@mips.UUCP> <377@garth.UUCP>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 16

Speaking from MIPS, mash@mips.UUCP (John Mashey) writes:
>     ...looking at the measure (units of real performance) per Mhz,
>you some idea of architectural efficiency, i.e., smaller numbers are
>better, in that (cycle time) is likely to be a property of the technology,
>and hard to improve, at a given level of technology. 

Speaking from Fairchild, kissell@garth.UUCP (Kevin Kissell) writes:
> I don't understand how someone of John's sophistication can insist on
> repeating such a clearly fallacious argument.  The statement "cycle time
> is likely to be a property of the technology" is simply untrue...

I love it!  The Intel/Motorola wars have been fun, but I'm glad they're
temporarily in abeyance.  Onward with the RISC versus RISC wars!   B*}
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
(C) Copyright 1986 by John Gilmore.             May the Source be with you!