From: kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: TT prices
Date: 17 Jun 92 10:01:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: zappa.KENTD.92Jun17110142
	<1992Jun16.093759.34421@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO
In-reply-to: ucacmsu@ucl.ac.uk's message of 16 Jun 92 09:37:59 GMT

>>>>> On 16 Jun 92 09:37:59 GMT, ucacmsu@ucl.ac.uk (Mr Stephen R Usher) said:

Mr> In article <1992Jun15.150122.14350@us-es.sel.de> mohr@slsvaat.sel.de (Thomas Mohr US/ESC) writes:
>cstdxas@warwick.ac.uk (Leo Hendry) writes:
>: In article <1992Jun11.233558.10330@mits.mdata.fi> paetau@mits.mdata.fi (Rasmus Paetau) writes:

Mr> [Stuff deleted]

>: 
>: - Leo Hendry
>
>Yep. If not for desktop publishing, I wouldn't see an application for the
>TT at all. If You need < Insert student's standard wishlist here >, which includes
>Unix, X-Window, *good* graphics & sound, SCSI; the average person
>would choose an '486. The 68030 ist *just too slow*. (look at the Next030,
>even the 040 is to replaced by an 88110).

Mr> Excuse me! The 68030 is approximately the same speed as the '486 at the same
Mr> clock rate, 

I don't know what planet you're from, but here on earth we use the term
"same speed" to mean "equally fast". Clearly, this is different from
your definition, because the 486 is *way* faster than the 030 at the
same clock speed. Just look at any benchmark you can find... the 486
will blow the 030 away. (see below for examples).

Mr> the 68040 is about 1.5-2 times the speed of the '486. 

This is BS also. The 486 is slightly *faster* than the 040 on integer
operations and slower by about 40% on floating point.  This fact
completely invalidates your claim that the 030 is even near the 486 in
performance, since moto even itself claims the 040 is 4 to 5x the speed
of the 030.

I have nothing to gain by saying the above, I think Moto has always had
a superior architecture, etc and I personally *own* an 030 box.
But in *raw* performance they no longer have anywhere near the lead they
used to over Intel. I just can't stand the level of misinformation
you're spewing here.

IMHO, someone in the US looking at setting up inexpensive UNIX
workstations would have to be absolutely RETARDED to buy anything
but an Intel box. With the current state of the market there is no way
Moto boxes are going to touch Intel boxes on price performance.

Don't take my word for it. Here are SPECmark numbers from an objective
source:

------------------
OK! Again, just for the record... (taken from comp.arch)
Part of a posting by Michael Slater:


--------------------------------------------------------------------
        Vendor      Moto  Moto  Intel Sun   MIPS  Moto  IBM     Intel
        Achitecture 68040 68040 486   SPARC R3000 88000 RS/6000 i860
        Cache       none  128K  128K  128K  128K  128K  64K/8K  none
        Clock (MHz) 25    25    25    25    25    25    25      33  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Integer gcc         12.4  13.8  13.8  13.8  15.5  17.5  17.8   11.5
        espresso    12.8  13.4  12.2  11.6  17.7  19.4  20.7   20.0
        li          14.9  15.5  16.8  11.2  20.4  20.7  19.8   17.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FP      spice2g6    11.8  13.1  8.8   11.4  12.1  12.5  27.6   14.8
        doduc       7.7   8.1   5.8   9.5   15.9  10.1  27.7   15.6
        nasa7       11.5  12.1  5.8   14.0  18.1  15.2  35.5   45.0
        matrix300   10.8  11.5  9.5   14.7  13.8  18.4  21.8   21.5
        fpppp       12.1  13.4  7.0   13.1  17.8  14.7  54.7   21.8
        tomcatv     8.4   9.1   4.3   8.2   13.9  11.6  75.7   34.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Means   SPECmark    11.0  11.8  8.8   11.8  16.1  15.2  28.9   20.3
        Integer     12.3  12.9  13.3  12.3  17.6  18.3  20.2   16.4
        FP          10.2  11.0  6.6   11.6  15.1  13.5  36.7   23.4
------------------------------------------------------------------
SPEC benchmark results for CISC and RISC systems at 25 MHz (except 
i860 at 33 MHz). All results as published by SPEC, except for 486 and 
860 results published by Intel and 68040 results provided by HP. The 
systems are the HP 425t, HP 425s, an unspecified 486 system, Sun 
SPARCstation 330, MIPS RC3240, Motorola 8864SP, IBM RS/6000 Model 530, 
and an 860 PC add-in board with static column DRAM. Cache sizes shown 
are external (second-level) caches only, except for RS/6000. MIPS and 
88K caches are 64K instruction and 64K data.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Slater, Editor and Publisher, Microprocessor Report
mslater@cup.portal.com    707/823-4004  fax: 707/823-0504
874 Gravenstein Hwy. So., Suite 14, Sebastopol 95472

-- 

Mr> Have you ever used a Sun 3/60... that's got a lowly 68020 in it and it's a
Mr> match for any '486 box in raw processing power. 

I'd really be amused to see some objective performance metrics
of a 3/60 vs an EISA 486 box. I had to use a 3/60 for a while at work,
and those things are *dogs*.

Mr> It's not the processor speed
Mr> which is the bottle neck these days it's the peripherals and the internal
Mr> architecture which determines the speed.

The SPECmarks above are tests of a complete system (i.e. disk, cpu,
etc.) it's clear that Moto and Intel are both in the same ball park 
on performance.
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent.Dalton@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics          * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-319            */  
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A      *   FAX: (303) 226-9556                  */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525  *                                        */
/**************************************************************************/
It's OKAY --- I'm an INTELLECTUAL, too.


Article 19620 of comp.sys.mac.hardware: