Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt
Subject: Re: Microchannel 'RT' at CMU (was Re: Why the original RT seemed/was slow (was ...)
Message-ID: <2176@spdcc.COM>
Date: 24 Nov 88 05:57:45 GMT
References: <5046@polya.Stanford.EDU> <1287@auschs.UUCP> <3671@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 24

In article <3671@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes:
>I don't know why they just didn't use the 80386 variant, since it might have
>resulted in even better performance (Andrew/Mach could use the '386 for disk
>and graphics, and crunch on the RT thing.)

I can guess why they didn't use the 80386 models.  Aside from the fact
that the models 70 weren't released yet when the Outrigger microchannel
card was introduced, the simple fact is that the 386 beats the pants
off the Outrigger right now; this particular microchannel RT's
performance is roughly 1/2 way between the original RT and the 2nd
generation APC RT.  Of course, that's not going to remain the status
quo, but it is the situation with the Model 60/Outrigger combination
right now.  (I wish I could remember its official IBM model number.)
It's still a nice machine, but I'd prefer something equal or faster
than the APC RT.

Another question.  Why are the latest 12.5mhz RT machines so expensive
compared to the 10mhz APC machines?  I'd hope you're getting more than
a 25% speedup for the 100% increase in price.  Charlie?

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.harvard.edu
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer