Date: 14 Feb 1997 02:58:59 -0600 From: Zach Heilig <zach@blizzard.gaffaneys.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UltraSPARC and MicroSPARC vs Pentium Pro ? Message-ID: <87d8u3ojak.fsf@murkwood.gaffaneys.com> In-Reply-To: Jason Andresen's message of Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:11:38 %2B0000 () References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970213160211.11103A-100000@jandrese.async.vt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason Andresen <jandrese@vt.edu> writes: > 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 I realize that clock rate between two separate architectures don't compare very well at all, but I find it interesting when people compare x86 hardware to <insert other platform here>, they tend to choose a higher clockrate for the x86 hardware. I'd like to see P6-180 (I don't think they make a 166/7...) verses the Ultra I. To change the subject somewhat... It would also be interesting to see a comparison between the 500MHz Alpha (or any of the new alphas... they start at 366MHz) and the P6-200. >From what I see in the ad here, a 500 MHz Alpha is priced to be fairly competetive with the P6-200. Too bad for WinNT 4.0 it only runs the Alpha in 32 bit mode (according to this ad). The 366MHz Alpha is even within the price range of a lot of home buyers. That price of $3k looks extremely attractive! I think I'm going to start saving my pennies. -- Zach Heilig (zach@blizzard.gaffaneys.com) | ALL unsolicited commercial email Support bacteria -- it's the only | is unwelcome. I avoid dealing form of culture some people have! | with companies that email ads.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87d8u3ojak.fsf>