Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!hpubvwa!hpfcse!hpuecoa!bgphp1!rclark
From: rclark@bgphp1.UUCP (Roger N. Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP825 math 15x SLOWER than 825
Message-ID: <830007@bgphp1.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 88 05:17:27 GMT
References: <830004@bgphp1.UUCP>
Organization: U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Geophysics, Denver
Lines: 7

I should qualify the results of the 500 versus 825 speeds.  If you
do not have a fully configured 500 (3 floating point cpus, 6+
megabytes of memory) and run multitasking, then the 825 might be a
real benefit.  After all it is about 3x faster than a single cpu
500.  It just happens that in my case I have about 10 people sharing
the cpus.  How many scientists/engineers can afford $50k+ machines
dedicated to one person, one task?