Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdurb!aglew
From: aglew@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Gates vs Transistors (was: Some
Message-ID: <28200244@mcdurb>
Date: 26 Nov 88 05:43:00 GMT
References: <19334@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Lines: 11
Nf-ID: #R:uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU:19334:mcdurb:28200244:000:510
Nf-From: mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew    Nov 25 23:43:00 1988


>If many people start quoting it, the marketeers will, too.  Transistor
>counts used to be mentioned as new microprocessors were introduced.  It's
>probably progress to quote MIPS/dhrystones per buck rather than the
>gate count (i.e. the dynamic utility vs. static existence).  Either way,
>there's a lot more to life than can be stuffed into a checksum.
>--
>  Charles Seeger     

Now there's a thought. Maybe we should Go:delize a complete
description of each system, and let the marketeers play with that.