Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!utegc!utai!anton
From: anton@utai.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Intel Microprocessors (fair benchmarking)
Message-ID: <4048@utai.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 09:09:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: utai.4048
Posted: Wed Aug 26 09:09:34 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Aug-87 01:05:58 EDT
References: <4381@intelca.UUCP> <416@aucs.UUCP>
Reply-To: anton@ai.UUCP (Anton Geshelin)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 30
Summary: 

In article <416@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes:
>I would think the "fairest" benchmarks should compare the following chips:
>
>    68000 <--> 8086
>    68008 <--> 8088
>    68010 <--> 80186
>    68020 <--> 80286
>    68030 <--> 80386
>
>And from what I hear, the 68030 blows the 80386 out of the water...
>
>
>Peter W. Steele     UUCP     : {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter
>Acadia University   BITNET   : Peter@Acadia
>Wolfville, N.S.     Internet : Peter%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
>Canada  B0P 1X0     PHONEnet : (902) 542-2201x121


I cannot see the logic behind this statement.

I THINK that we should compare current production hardware.  I THINK that
we should compare similarly priced systems like the new Macs and 386
machines, because that is what can be had right now and not in the year
2001.  

In conclusion have you noticed that the micro wars ended abruptly when
the 386 bencmarks were published.  I guess this is because people who
have something to proove have no more fiction to go on.  What we have
in the preceeding message is a futile attempt to throw some sand
in the form of 68030 into our eyes.