CompuServe Messages

Ah – your hard data rating comparison of the RS/6000 and a 3081 IS a good point. MIPS IS a very limited measurement, and if one ONLY used MIPS to make a purchase decision, then said persons shouldn't bother asking why there isn't a CD player included, and why the radio is monaural instead of the expected quadraphonic! 🙂 Perhaps the current SPEC benchmarks are too big to run on a lowly 8-bitter, but the testing parameters, if they are well enough defined, could be rewritten to produce similar results on ANY machine. Obviously, some kinds of measurements may not be possible across all machines, in which case, said measurements are measures of a CLASS of machines. There should STILL BE, however, sufficient quantitative measures to get a similar kind of RELATIVE system performance. After all, they have applications, integer instructions, software/firmware emulated trigonometric functions, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Why CAN'T I measure the system performance of an 8-bitter system? It is not trivial to define the necessary mathematical model that can be applied universally, and it is probably impossible. But it SHOULD be possible to define a sufficiently acceptable subset that COULD be applied to any machine. Perhaps SPEC benchmarks can achieve this goal. Should "we" send the vendors a petition to include SPEC benchmarks in all of their system performance ratings? I don't see that a MIPS ratings comparison between an 80xxx and a 68xxx is invalid. That's like saying that the MPG ratings for a Ford is incomparable to an MPG rating of a Suzuki (motorcycle, that is), or even an 18-wheeler. It's the OTHER factors (mininum/maximum instruction cycle time, number of concurrent users, et cetera) that really make the difference. If I have a 21 MIP system and you have an 18 MIP system, then it IS possible to say that "given all other things being (considered) equal", that "my" machine will be faster than "your" machine, at LEAST in <continued>