From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Feb 13 13:12:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA08768 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from quackerjack.cc.vt.edu (quackerjack.cc.vt.edu [198.82.160.250]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA08760 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from sable.cc.vt.edu (sable.cc.vt.edu [128.173.16.30]) by quackerjack.cc.vt.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA09691; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from jandrese.async.vt.edu (jandrese.async.vt.edu [128.173.20.208]) by sable.cc.vt.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id QAA14555; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:11:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:11:38 +0000 () From: Jason Andresen X-Sender: jandrese@jandrese.async.vt.edu To: Ben Black cc: Walter Hafner , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UltraSPARC and MicroSPARC vs Pentium Pro ? In-Reply-To: <9702131713.AA25713@squid.gage.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Ben Black wrote: =)>As you can see from the reference: =)> =)>- Overall performance is about the same as a Sparc 20 =)>- float is actually much faster on the Pentium as on the Sparc 20. =)> =) =)so a 133MHz P5 beats a 60MHz SuperSPARC? amazing. =) =)>Considering the price, the Pentium is of course the best you can get - =)>at least for image processing! (PC's have faster and better graphic =)>boards too, compared to typical workstations!) =)> =) =)yeah, those creator 3d boards with ALUs in the VRAM are just such junk. i'd =)much rather have a nice matrox board. gimme a break. =) =)>BTW: A P-Pro 200 has an overall benchmark of 3.0 ... faster than a Ultra =)>143 or Indigo 2! I can't give you exact results since our P-Pro is =)>currently in San Jose (SPIE conference exhibit). =)> =) =)a 200MHz P6 beats a 143MHz UltraSPARC? amazing. according to your =)benchmarks, the 167MHz UltraSPARC beats the 200MHz P6. how about numbers for =)a 200MHz Ultra? =) Man, I've been seeing a lot of benchmarks lately; too bad I havn't seen sources. To paraphrase Mark Twain "There are three kinds of lies: lies, dammed lies, and benchmarks". Looking at the listings on http://infopad.eecs.berkeley.edu/CIC/summary/local/ It looks like the P6-200 beats the Sparc Ultra I in integer and loses in floating point performance. No suprise there. Processor Clock Rate SpecInt '95 SpecFloat '95 Ultra I 167 MHz 6.3 9.4 P6 200 MHz 8.7 6.7 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::. . . . . ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Jason Andresen :. . . . . . . . . : Web and FTP server at :: :: jandrese@vt.edu :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:: jandrese.async.vt.edu :: :.........................: Quote of the day :..........................: No animal should ever jump on the dining room furniture unless absolutely certain he can hold his own in conversation. -- Fran Lebowitz :::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.........................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::