Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.tufts.edu!m055-446-a-d1.tc.tufts.edu!user From: dhassell@diamond.tufts.edu (David Hassell) Newsgroups: alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.binaries.warez.mac,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.machten,comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.user-friendly Subject: Re: FIVE GOOD REASONS WHY IBM'S ARE BETTER THAN MACS Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:12:25 -0400 Organization: Hmmmm....... Lines: 32 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <dhassell-1604961912250001@m055-446-a-d1.tc.tufts.edu> References: <4ke9k9$17v@masala.cc.uh.edu> <abrazel-1104961204470001@dial29.ppp.iastate.edu> <4kpik2$1h7e@rex.cadvision.com> <abrazel-1604961011350001@dial25.ppp.iastate.edu> <4l15rk$luq@yama.mcc.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: m055-446-a-d1.tc.tufts.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc:34352 alt.binaries.warez.mac:3072 comp.os.linux.advocacy:45154 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:123047 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:21496 comp.os.msdos.misc:53235 comp.os.os2.advocacy:192785 comp.sys.acorn.advocacy:8020 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:99112 comp.sys.next.advocacy:34713 comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy:2568 comp.unix.advocacy:19082 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17216 comp.unix.bsd.misc:719 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2959 comp.unix.machten:2206 comp.unix.pc-clon e.16bit:640 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:9192 comp.unix.shell:31611 comp.unix.solaris:65869 comp.unix.user-friendly:3582 Based on the rest of the post (and information I have read), I think he meant to say, "Then why have PC magazines shown that a 150 MHz PPC 604 is faster than a 200 MHz P6?". It was a typo, and for the record, PC magazines *have* said this... I would not expect that Intel's line will catch up to the Power of the PPC until they switch over to using RISC. - Dave In article <4l15rk$luq@yama.mcc.ac.uk>, geoffw@jumper.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff) wrote: >Christan Paul Hamann (abrazel@iastate.edu) wrote: >: > Lets measure Processing Power tho. P6 whoops the PowerPC's ass. > >: Then why have PC magazines shown that a 150 MHz Pentium is faster than a >: 200 MHz P6? > >I think you'll find that that is in real-world use... ie on 16-bit >code the p6 is crap, basically because it is optimised to extreme to >execute 32-bit code. > >I could of course be wrong - I haven't seen the comparisons. But I somehow >doubt that intel would release a P6 if it was slower than the >Pentium at benchmarking. > >G. -- David Hassell dhassell@emerald.tufts.edu Tufts Varsity Crew @diamond.tufts.edu Residential Computer Consultant, @cs.tufts.edu Area Supervisor http://www.tufts.edu/~dhassell/crew.html