Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!mephisto!udel!sbcs!root
From: root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Systems Staff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga 3000
Message-ID: <6398@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 90 11:50:08 GMT
References: <13479@baldrick.udel.EDU> <9884@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <6857@cps3xx.UUCP> <3944@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <6360@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <3951@nmtsun.nmt.edu>
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 50

In article <3951@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes:
>In article <6360@sbcs.sunysb.edu> root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Systems Staff) writes:
>
>>	Unqualified statements such as yours are meaningless.  Which,
>>	exactly, 68040 system are you referring to?  Are you talking compute,
>
>Meaningless??  I think you are missing the point here...  The original 
>question was whether to build an Amiga SPARC or 68040, based on pure
>processing performance, the 68040 IS Faster...
			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Faster than *what*?  A Sparc clocked at equivalent rate?  Faster than
	a 33 mHz Sparc?  What exactly are you saying?  That a 1994 80 mHz '040
	is faster than a 1989 20 mHz Sparcstation-1?  You are making a statement
	without qualifying it, thus it is meaningless.  Motorola claims the
	'040 to have an CPI that is roughly the same as some current RISC
	chips, so that would indicate for some applications, at the same clock 
	speed and using '040 instructions that are pipelined, it *might* (if
	Motorola marketspeak is roughly true) run same speed as current Sparc.

>And you don't think Motorola could meet their own "reported" performance
>in the FINAL stages of release?  Have they ever NOT met their reported
>figures??  

	Yes, they can meet their "reported" performance if they only
	state it to be 20 mips.  Without qualifying how they measure
	a MIP then it could be 20 mips of NOP or 20 MIPS of FP in the
	extremes.

>I think you are the one caught in this "markethype" thing...  Do you actually
>think that Motorola would make empty claims as to it's processor against a
>SPARC?  Maybe it might not run exactly 20 MIPS, but I'm sure they would insist
>that their processor be faster than the current SPARC's...  I don't even think
>you know much about the 68040... if in fact it does run as "reported", it would
>in most aspects beat out a current SPARC... So why don't you think about it
>before you go knocking other's words...

	Oh, you mean faster than the Soulborne machine?  Seriously, you
	haven't been around that long if you think every statement a company
	makes, especially about performance, is always met.  Again, comparing
	a machine that exists (Soulborne, SS-1, other Sparc) against a
	machine that isn't released is ridiculous and unfair.  Until there
	is a 68040 that can be SPECMark'ed by someone other than Motorola,
	then the '040 clocks 0 mips in my book.

>>					Rick Spanbauer
>>					State U of NY/Stony Brook

>-Dino Khoe
>dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu 		 |	|---||____||   |\     can be