Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari!uniwa!vaxa!g_ahrendt
From: g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: CDC 205 et al
Message-ID: <568309@vaxa.uwa.oz>
Date: 30 Apr 89 12:28:09 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia
Lines: 27

1. In regard to an article posted a while back stating that the CDC CYBER 205 is
slower than a Cray 1. This is incorrect. The CDC CYBER 205-424 has been clocked 
around 800 MIPS, making it faster than the Cray 1, ETA10-P, ETA10-Q, NEC SX-1, 
Cray X/MP-2, IBM Sierra 3090-400/VF, NEC SX-1E.....

2. A second article displayed the following :
>Cray		  US		  X/MP, Y/MP, II       Current US top of line
>Cray		  US		  III (Q3 '90)	       6 ns cycle, GaAs
>NEC/Honeywell	  Japan/US        SX series (Q3 '90)   22 GFlops, 3 ns cycle
>Fujitsu           Japan           VP2000 series	       4 GFlops, uniprocessor
>Fujitsu/Siemens   Japan/Euro      VP2000 series	('90)  16 GFlops, 4 processor
>ETA		  US (sayonara)   ETA-10
>IBM/Steven Chen	  US		  In development
>Hitachi/NAS/Comparex Info. Systeme
>		  Japan/US/FRG	  ??                     

This is also incorrect, whereas the following gives a more accurate picture, 
based on machines actually available, and not scheduled for production.

1. ETA               US 10-G       10.3 Billion Instructions per Second 
2. Thinking Machines US CM-2       10   Billion Instructions per Second
3. West German Govt. D  Suprenum 1  5   Billion Instructions per Second
4. ETA               US 10-E        3.4 Billion Instructions per Second
5. NEC               J  SX-X44      3.2 Billion Instructions per Second
6. Cray              US X/MP-416    2.8 Billion Instructions per Second
7. Thinking Machines US CM-1        2   Billion Instructions per Second
8. NEC               J  SX-2        1.3 Billion Instructions per Second