*BSD News Article 65780


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.tufts.edu!m055-446-a-d1.tc.tufts.edu!user
From: dhassell@diamond.tufts.edu (David Hassell)
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.binaries.warez.mac,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.machten,comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.user-friendly
Subject: Re: FIVE GOOD REASONS WHY IBM'S ARE BETTER THAN MACS
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:12:25 -0400
Organization: Hmmmm.......
Lines: 32
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <dhassell-1604961912250001@m055-446-a-d1.tc.tufts.edu>
References: <4ke9k9$17v@masala.cc.uh.edu> <abrazel-1104961204470001@dial29.ppp.iastate.edu> <4kpik2$1h7e@rex.cadvision.com> <abrazel-1604961011350001@dial25.ppp.iastate.edu> <4l15rk$luq@yama.mcc.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m055-446-a-d1.tc.tufts.edu
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc:34352 alt.binaries.warez.mac:3072 comp.os.linux.advocacy:45154 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:123047 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:21496 comp.os.msdos.misc:53235 comp.os.os2.advocacy:192785 comp.sys.acorn.advocacy:8020 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:99112 comp.sys.next.advocacy:34713 comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy:2568 comp.unix.advocacy:19082 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17216 comp.unix.bsd.misc:719 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2959 comp.unix.machten:2206 comp.unix.pc-clon
e.16bit:640 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:9192 comp.unix.shell:31611 comp.unix.solaris:65869 comp.unix.user-friendly:3582

Based on the rest of the post (and information I have read), I think he 
meant to say, "Then why have PC magazines shown that a 150 MHz PPC 604 is 
faster than a 200 MHz P6?".   It was a typo, and for the record, PC 
magazines *have* said this...  I would not expect that Intel's line will
catch up to the Power of the PPC until they switch over to using RISC.

 - Dave


In article <4l15rk$luq@yama.mcc.ac.uk>, geoffw@jumper.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff) wrote:

>Christan Paul Hamann (abrazel@iastate.edu) wrote:
>: > Lets measure Processing Power tho.  P6 whoops the PowerPC's ass.
>
>: Then why have PC magazines shown that a 150 MHz Pentium is faster than a
>: 200 MHz P6?
>
>I think you'll find that that is in real-world use... ie on 16-bit
>code the p6 is crap, basically because it is optimised to extreme to
>execute 32-bit code.
>
>I could of course be wrong - I haven't seen the comparisons. But I somehow
>doubt that intel would release a P6 if it was slower than the
>Pentium at benchmarking.
>
>G.

-- 
David Hassell                        dhassell@emerald.tufts.edu
Tufts Varsity Crew                           @diamond.tufts.edu
Residential Computer Consultant,             @cs.tufts.edu
Area Supervisor         http://www.tufts.edu/~dhassell/crew.html