Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!talon.UCS.ORST.EDU!orstcs!prism!bostrov
From: bostrov@prism.cs.orst.edu (Vareck Bostrom)
Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC -- SPECmarks
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.210605.5748@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>
Keywords: MIPS are MEANINGLESS
Sender: @lynx.CS.ORST.EDU
Nntp-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept
References: <8lbG1vdl1@cs.psu.edu> <racGk93s1@cs.psu.edu> <1991Apr18.180538.1@sif.claremont.edu> <339@nic.cerf.net>
Distribution: orst
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 91 21:06:05 GMT

In <339@nic.cerf.net> benseb@nic.cerf.net (Booker Bense) writes:

>In article <1991Apr18.180538.1@sif.claremont.edu> greg@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>>In article <racGk93s1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
>>> 
>>> In article <1991Apr17.192605.1@sif.claremont.edu> greg@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
[ Stuff about Super Computers Deleted ]
>>I would tend to disagree.  I have a benchmark that I run periodically
>>when I have the chance to get my hands on a new machine with a C compiler.
[CISC performance stuff deleted] 

>- Getting performance out of the machine depends on alot more than
>MIPS or even MFLOPS. The whole system has to be balanced, ie if you have a
>fast chip , you have to have a fast disk , fast memory ,etc... The
>only real test of a machine is to take code that you use and run it. 
[more stuff about balanced systems deleted]
>[ Rational arguement about merging of RISC CISC designs deleted ]

>- So in conclusion what you really need to measure is 

>price/(performance doing what I do )

I will agree with the stuff about the SPARCs poor graphic performance.
Have you ever noticed that Sun-3's seem to do graphics and animation
better than Sun-4's? 

The NeXT seems fast enough for me now (the 030 wasn't) until I try to 
do something like ray-traceing, then when I compare it to SPARC-2's and
DEC 5000's, the 040 NeXT seems greatly underpowered. I don't worry about
it too much, as I really don't have a NEED to have the trace done at any
certain time. 

Too bad somebody doesn't come out with a iWARP coprocessing board for the
cube, with compiler and everything. Put a supercomputer on your desk...

AS much as an improvement as the 040 is over the 030, the windowing system
on the NeXT still seems much slower than Xwindows on a SPARC 1 or Sun-3,
and my cube seems to swap a hell of a lot (I only have 8mb, but
the Suns I have worked with had only 8mb, and they did fine). I also notice
that building large programs takes longer on the NeXT than on SPARC and MIPS
based machines, though the resulting binaries appear to be about equal in 
speed (25 MHz SPARC vs 25 MHz 68040), as long as it wasn't a heavy FP 
type program. 

I certanily DON'T think the 68040 gets anywhere near 2.0 MFlops, let alone 3.3.
Perhaps 1.4 on a good day. A floating point accellerator is needed on the
NeXT for scientific applications. 

- Vareck Bostrom
bostrov@prism.cs.orst.edu
- or -
bostrov@gnu.ai.mit.edu


>- Booker C. Bense                    
>prefered: benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu	"I think it's GOOD that everyone 
>NeXT Mail: benseb@next.sdsc.edu 	   becomes food " - Hobbes
