"Fred Kleinsorge" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message news:fzTB8.33$uF5.390298@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net... > Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ... > > > > > >Fred Kleinsorge wrote: ... > >> So there you go. Assuming your predictions are right, McKinley will beat > >> USIII (and even your outside estimate of USIII getting faster doesn't > take > >> into account the tricked up compiler that caused the temportary "upgrade" > of > >> USIII speed). > >> > > > > > >There you go again posting about something you don't understand. > > > >1. The optimisation used by Sun only effected SPECfp note that Bill > >is talking about SPECint. Even you should be aware of the differences. > > > > It should beat Sparc using any measurment. Not only questionable (memory access latency and perhaps bandwidth as well come immediately to mind, SPARC having on-chip memory glue today that hasn't yet appeared in any Itanic forecast - right through 2004) but also irrelevant to Andrew's comment (which was specifically about your gaffe above). Heck, an old guy with a hand > calculator will give it a good run for the money. Perhaps you're confusing SPARC with Merced... ... > Why would > anyone run slowaris on a uniprocessor Sparc when an IA32 is faster and > cheaper? A better question is why anyone would run *any* OS on Itanic when Hammer (and for a while Alpha) will be both faster and cheaper (and most other competition at least one of those two). I guess if you want to run VMS you won't have much choice after a while, but most other Itanic OSs will be available elsewhere (either natively or in some similar form of Unix). - bill * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *