Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!ur-tut!ur-cvsvax!srs!matt
From: matt@srs.UUCP (Matt Goheen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: BYTE MAG (We don't even rate...)
Message-ID: <434@srs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Oct-87 14:32:52 EST
Article-I.D.: srs.434
Posted: Fri Oct 30 14:32:52 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 15:23:17 EST
References: <12346169899024@G.BBN.COM> <588@auscso.UUCP>
Organization: S.R. Systems, Rochester NY
Lines: 20

>                                                                    Not to 
> mention that ridiculous "benchmark" of the Mac II vs. the 386, which was pub-
> lished at a time when even the IBM rags were really hyping the Mac II.

Why is it that people just can't face facts.  The 80386 is just plain
faster than a 68020 of the same clock speed for doing your typical
"benchmarky" type things.  I have yet to see a benchmark say anything
to the contrary.  Even Sun's latest "A RISC Tutorial" says that the 80386
benchmarks faster than the 68030!  Now, I'm not saying that the 80386 is
a great processor (or that I would ever buy a machine that had one in it),
but let's face the facts.

I'm sure most people don't want to read this argument AGAIN, so if you
have something to say, mail it to me.  Also, I agree that the Byte
"benchmark" was quite ridiculous, but most "benchmarks" are.
-- 
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
- UUCP:	{allegra,rutgers,ames}!rochester!srs!matt	Matt Goheen 	-
- "If you think too hard, you'll blow yourself in two."	S.R. Systems	-
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-