Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!necis!encore!devoz
From: devoz@encore.UUCP (Joe Devincentis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: ns32000 processor series
Message-ID: <1822@encore.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Aug-87 17:59:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: encore.1822
Posted: Sat Aug  8 17:59:22 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 21:44:46 EDT
References: <777@PSUECLB> <4532@nsc.nsc.com> <2674@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: devoz@encore.UUCP (Joe Devincentis)
Organization: Encore Computer Corp., Wellesley Hills, MA
Lines: 28

In article <2674@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>
>He later corrected it to say 2 mips, not 2-2.5, continuing the strong
>NSC tradition of lying about chip performance in the 'executive summaries'
>while admitting it's lower when challenged by techies.

How can the correction to a more reasonable number, (and how do YOU know
how reasonable it is?), be a continuation of "a strong NSC tradition about
lying about chip performance"?   Which chip manufacturers are NOT 
"optimistic" about their chips MIPS rating?  (6502's don't count, no one 
rates them in mips :-).

>
>What I'm wondering is, where is the respectable Sun-3 class Unix workstation
>built around this chip?  I mean a physical workstation, not a theory about
>how easy it would be.
>-- 

An in-house user of the sun 3 said to me that the 332 seems to perform just
as well if not better (housed by a multimax 320 multiprocessor).  (I haven't
used the sun 3 YET).  You might check with Whitechapel LTD? in the UK, they
have an 032 workstation, maybe the have a 332 workstation now.

Personally, I think that all of the micro manufacturers are making
some exciting chips.  It is confusing wading through the MIPS ratings,
but it is easier than building one yourself :-).

						devoz@encore