Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!prls!mips!mash
From: mash@mips.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Recent Motorola ad seen in Byte
Message-ID: <251@winchester.mips.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Apr-87 02:32:54 EST
Article-I.D.: winchest.251
Posted: Thu Apr  2 02:32:54 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 12:06:47 EST
References: <362@sbcs.UUCP> <1466@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <580@plx.UUCP>
Reply-To: mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey)
Distribution: comp
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 20
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.m68k:292 comp.sys.intel:124

In article <580@plx.UUCP> ed@plx.UUCP (Ed Chaban) writes:
...discussion of 68K versus Intel merits....
> Now the REAL screamer is CLIPPER. The nice thing about CLIPPER is
> that you can really cut down on all those support chips (building an
> 8k cache out of discrete components is EXPENSIVE.  

Sigh.  If you can support that statement with live benchmarks of
substantial, real programs, please post them.  Even synthetic benchmarks
(beyond those in the Intergraph 12/86 report, I have that)
of any size would be useful, since it's VERY hard to find substantive
numbers that really support the Clipper performance claims (5 Mips,
average performance 5X an 11/780) on anything but Dhrystone and "toy"
benchmarks.

8K cache: expensive? we spend about $150 for 24K of cache.  Maybe that's
more expensive than a pair of 300K+ transistor Clipper CAMMUs, but I doubt it.
-- 
-john mashey	DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP: 	{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!mash, DDD:  	408-720-1700, x253
USPS: 	MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086