Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!pyramid!amdahl!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!kds
From: kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Floating point performance & Mr. Mashey's Mythical Mhz
Message-ID: <247@mipos3.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Nov-86 16:40:28 EST
Article-I.D.: mipos3.247
Posted: Thu Nov  6 16:40:28 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Nov-86 04:56:30 EST
References: <340@euroies.UUCP> <1989@videovax.UUCP> <722@mips.UUCP> <377@garth.UUCP> <727@mips.UUCP> <103@unc.unc.UUCP> <21944@rochester.ARP6 Nov 86 21:40:28 GMT
Reply-To: kds@mipos3.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker ~)
Distribution: net
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 13

arguments about architectural effeciency aside, you'd have an easier time
making a system that runs at 8 MHz than one that runs at 33 MHz (or whatever)
even if the overall memory access time requirement is the same.  And
you'd have a much easier time making a system that goes at 16 MHz than one
that goes at 66 MHz.
-- 
The above views are personal.

I've seen the future, I can't afford it...

Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, California
uucp: ...{hplabs|decwrl|amdcad|qantel|pur-ee|scgvaxd|oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!kds
csnet/arpanet: kds@mipos3.intel.com