Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ames.arc.nasa.gov!lamaster
From: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Criteria ... [really: are N designs better than 1?]
Message-ID: <25294@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 11 May 89 19:34:19 GMT
References: <2368@ogccse.ogc.edu> <1464@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> <141@dg.dg.com> <156@dg.dg.com> <658@pitstop.West.Sun.COM> <19088@winchester.mips.COM>
Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center
Lines: 50

In article <19088@winchester.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
(many things: summary: a comparison of RISC systems, etc.)

>OF COURSE, SINGLE-NUMBER MIPS-NUMBERS ARE Wrong Things, but here are

>Sorted by date, with MIPS using numerics and SPARC using alphas:
>Code	Clock	Dhry	VAX	date	machine
>	MHZ	mips	mips		
>1	12.5	11	8	2Q87	MIPS M/800, R2000+128K cache
>2	15	13	10	4Q87	MIPS M/1000, R2000+128K cache
>A	16.7	11	8*	4Q87	Sun-4/200, Fujitsu+128K cache
>3	16.7	16	12	2Q88	MIPS M/120-5, R2000+128K cache
>4	25	24	20	4Q88	MIPS M/2000, R3000+128K cache
>B	25	16	12*	2Q89	SPARCsystem 300s, Cypress+128K cache
>C	33	20	16*?	4Q89?	SunRay, Cypress+??

There has been enough of this kind of traffic over the last few years to
probably justify a separate newsgroup for *performance* : comp.perf?

It *is* interesting to *me* to hear arguments over whether Mips, SPARC, or 88000
based RISC systems provide the most CPU power for the dollar, as well as 
performance summaries on various benchmarks.  Since these things are a little
more "commercial" than many would like to see comp.arch, as well as more
"personal" (facts vs. opinions, etc.), it would help keep an eye on more
architectural issues if they were in a separate newsgroup.



A few quick questions: 

The chart supplied shows R2000 based systems falling in
at about MIPS = 2/3 MHz, with R3000 based systems at MIPS = 8/10 MHz.
(1 data point, but you could also look at claims by other companies using
the Mips CPU's...)  

(Agreed: Single number MIPS ratings are Wrong Things, but since we are
looking at Integer Benchmarks within a particular architecture, maybe it is
possible to ask a question or two...)

What is the explanation for this change?

Could we expect to see the next generation of SPARC systems make a similar
leap forward (why or why not)?

How do 88000 based systems stack up, using the same criteria?

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117