nivek@cmu-ri-rover.ARPA (Kevin Dowling) (04/23/85)
Does there exist a relatively unbiased comparison between several 16 bit or 32 bit processors? Specifically the Intel iAPX286 and the Motorola MC6800. I don't want to start a flame session on info-micro regarding this kind of comparison like the kind I read in advertising literature. In the spring 84 Motorola System News there was an article purporting to be a comparison with phrases refering to the 286 like: "As a result, such crippling concepts as..." "These exact their harsh penalties in a multitude of ways..." And Intel is no saint either. Of course, I am not expecting unbiased remarks from competitors however I do not expect disparging remarks! Also, are there 3rd party products for the Intel BitBus that exist yet? Intel seems to only have 2 boards (the 344 controller and a 24bit parallel I/O board) so far. nivek Aka : Kevin Dowling Bell: (412) 578-8830 Arpa: nivek@cmu-ri-rover Mail: Robotics Institute Schenley Park Pgh, PA 15213
cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) (04/27/85)
> > Does there exist a relatively unbiased comparison between several 16 bit or > 32 bit processors? Specifically the Intel iAPX286 and the Motorola MC6800. I ^^^^^^ I can promise without doubt that the 286 is faster than a 6800 :-). For some unbiased comparisons of relative performance you might want to check into some the various independent agencies like Yates Ventures, Data Quest, etc. You might be suprised, they were. If you are lucky, someone in your area has a 286/310 system or maybe a 286/380. Try some benchmarks for yourself on Xenix against the same programs on a Sun. You might be REAL suprised. I am of course, not unbiased. --Chuck -- - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - - {ihnp4,fortune}!dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my {qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my {ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}
jpm@bnl44.ARPA (John McNamee) (04/30/85)
Did any of the benchmarks you refered to happen to require more than 64K of data? Probably not, because you would be ashamed of the results instead of proud of them if that were the case. 80*86's make nice LSI-11 replacements, but I wish Intel would stop trying to convince people that are actually useful for real work. Todays jobs require more than 64K of data space, and the 80*86 is useless for that. Maybe if Intel designs a new chip instead of upgrading the 4004, you might hit upon something good. Then again, maybe not, the 432 never quite made it. So I guess Intel should stick to doing 4004 upgrades. You will always have a market full of people more interested in quick delivery and backwards compatibility, and who don't care at all about performance. Why am I flaming so hard at Intel? Because I own a 186 based system, and I'm sick and tired of working around its limitations. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm jpm@BNL44.ARPA
jja@hou2f.UUCP (J.ARLETH) (05/03/85)
>Did any of the benchmarks you refered to happen to require more than 64K >of data? Probably not, because you would be ashamed of the results instead >of proud of them if that were the case. 80*86's make nice LSI-11 replacements, >but I wish Intel would stop trying to convince people that are actually useful >for real work. Todays jobs require more than 64K of data space, and the 80*86 >is useless for that. Maybe if Intel designs a new chip instead of upgrading >the 4004, you might hit upon something good. Then again, maybe not, the 432 >never quite made it. So I guess Intel should stick to doing 4004 upgrades. >You will always have a market full of people more interested in quick delivery >and backwards compatibility, and who don't care at all about performance. > >Why am I flaming so hard at Intel? Because I own a 186 based system, and I'm >sick and tired of working around its limitations. >-- > > John McNamee > ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm > jpm@BNL44.ARPA > > Yeah!! What he said. It is actually amusing to look at the benchmarks that have been published comparing these two processors. Intel insists on either comparing the two processors of the same clock rate or comparing short string copy programs. Another set of benchmarks that I've seen are based on a number of COLBOL programs. And another thing. Backward compatability and state-of-the-art performance are obvious trade offs. Intel's 286 (has a mode which) is backwards compatabile with its 8086 processor. It paid a price for this. Motorola paid a different price (software incompatability) by designing the 68000 without 6809 compatability constraints. This is why it yields better performance for most 'real' jobs. Jim Arleth hou2f!jja ...The usual disclaimers.
bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) (06/03/85)
Enough is enough!!! I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" so that all you people who enjoy discussing benchmarks, registers, segments, clock cycles and other marketing hype can do so away from the rest of us. I am member of the user community, not the argueing community. Bjorn Benson ..!uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!bjorn
bill@persci.UUCP (06/04/85)
>Enough is enough!!! > >I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" so that >all you people who enjoy discussing benchmarks, registers, segments, >clock cycles and other marketing hype can do so away from the rest of >us. I am member of the user community, not the argueing community. > > Bjorn Benson > ..!uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!bjorn I second the motion!! I am just about ready to unsubscribe from this group. (Perhaps it should be called net.flame.micro :-) -- Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) (06/07/85)
In article <675@dataio.UUCP> bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) writes: >Enough is enough!!! > >I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" so that >all you people who enjoy discussing benchmarks, registers, segments, >... I vote YES. I will not subscribe to it (even tho' I am actually interested and even professionally involved in the issue the discussion on the net has reached the mega-junk stage where info/flame ratio is too low to be worth reading). But IFF we can have the debate restricted to such a group - THEN I'll not have to unsubscribe to net.arch - which ought to be far more useful if there is less in it.
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (06/07/85)
In article <675@dataio.UUCP> bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) writes: > >I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" so that >all you people who enjoy discussing benchmarks, registers, segments, >clock cycles and other marketing hype can do so away from the rest of >us. I second the motion--only let's call it net.micro.compet. I think that there is a legitimate place on the net for discussion of the pros and cons of various architectures/implementations, and I think that the people who just want solid technical info about their specific micro/language ought to be able to read the appropriate newsgroup without having to wade through the competitive material. -- Richard Mateosian {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (06/07/85)
> In article <675@dataio.UUCP> bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) writes: > > > >I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" so that > >all you people who enjoy discussing benchmarks, registers, segments, > >clock cycles and other marketing hype can do so away from the rest of > >us. > > I second the motion--only let's call it net.micro.compet. I think that > there is a legitimate place on the net for discussion of the pros and cons > of various architectures/implementations, and I think that the people who > just want solid technical info about their specific micro/language ought > to be able to read the appropriate newsgroup without having to wade through > the competitive material. > -- > Richard Mateosian I thought that's what net.arch was for in the first place. It's why I read it. There is no better way to learn details of the "uglies" in a particular architecture, and their consequences, than to read a debate by two competitors. I say, let the flames roll on ... -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA
clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) (06/07/85)
> Enough is enough!!! > > I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" so that > all you people who enjoy discussing benchmarks, registers, segments, > clock cycles and other marketing hype can do so away from the rest of > us. I am member of the user community, not the argueing community. > > Bjorn Benson > ..!uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!bjorn I think Bjorn is correct in fairness to all of the people who don't care how fast or slow (in the case of the 680xx or 320xx) a manufacturer's processor is. I think we shouldn't limit it just to the 80286 vs the 68020, so why not call it net.micro.benchmarks. -- Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif {standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }
jty@tut.UUCP (Jyrki Yli-Nokari) (06/10/85)
In article <persci.182> bill@persci.UUCP writes: >>Enough is enough!!! >> Sure is!! >>I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" so that.. >I second the motion!! I am just about ready to unsubscribe from this group. 3 votes from jty jv and hmj@tut.UUCP >(Perhaps it should be called net.flame.micro :-) Yes! Or move the whole discussion to net.flame. It really belongs there! -- FORTH makes my days! ...mcvax!tut!jty Jyrki Yli-Nokari N 61 26' E 23 50' +358 31 162590, home +358 31 178833
mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) (06/10/85)
> > In article <675@dataio.UUCP> bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) writes: > >Enough is enough!!! > > > >I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" so that > >all you people who enjoy discussing benchmarks, registers, segments, > >... > > I vote YES. I will not subscribe to it (even tho' I am actually interested > and even professionally involved in the issue the discussion on the net > has reached the mega-junk stage where info/flame ratio is too low to be worth > reading). But IFF we can have the debate restricted to such a group - > THEN I'll not have to unsubscribe to net.arch - which ought to be far more > useful if there is less in it. How about creating a moderated group? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Wexler(trwrb!pertec!peregrine!mike) | Flame the BOZOs! :-) 15530 Rockfield, Building C | This space is not for rent. Irvine, Ca 92718 (714)855-3923 | This space might be. :-)
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (06/12/85)
Is there a way to have vnews skip items such as the N'th iteration on something as the 286 vs 68k battle? I can't take it any more! My line is only 1200 baud and n just doesn't work that fast. Help in this matter would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Eugene
dibble@rochester.UUCP (06/12/85)
> Or move the whole discussion to net.flame. It really belongs there!
I find the discussion at least a little informative. True, there is more
noise than light but even the noise is sort of fun. The participants in
the discussion are polite and present organized (if biased) arguments.
In this discussion I've seen the first information I've encountered about
the 80386.
I like seeing people who seem to know discuss the rational behind the design
for the 8086.
If this information about microprocessors and computer architecture was
mixed with the junk on net.flame, I'd never see it.
These notes are clearly marked by the subject line. When I get bored of this
discussion I'll stop reading them.
Finally if the discussion of the merits of microprocessors is moved to
a separate news group the lack of this critical audience would probably
either make the contestants shut up or sink to simple name calling.
I say: keep them here where we can keep an eye on them.bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) (06/12/85)
In article <127@peregrine.UUCP> mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) writes: >> >> In article <675@dataio.UUCP> bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) writes: >> >Enough is enough!!! >> > >> >I propose that we start a new newsgroup "net.micro.68vs286" ... >> >> I vote YES. > >How about creating a moderated group? As the originator of this I would like to point out that a moderated newsgroup would not work for this "hot" topic. The moderator would prevent people from posting flames, insults, biased benchmarks, advertisements, etc. However these people would just post them elsewhere instead (like here!). In other words a moderator net.micro.68vs286 (or whatever) would not serve the purpose of cleaning up these newsgroups. Bjorn Benson ..!uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!bjorn P.S. And if you chose a moderator would he have an 80*86 or 68k system? :-)
curtis@uwmacc.UUCP (06/13/85)
I agree with Mr Dibble's view that this discussion should remain in net.micro.
The banter that has been exchanged has been reasonably informative as well
as consistently entertaining. It seems as though the "combative benchmarking"
has died down somewhat over the past week, which is a needed respite, but
when it starts up again I'll still be interested in reading it.
Alan Curtisbc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (06/14/85)
If there has ever been a topic as totally burned out, dead, and deserving of being dropped, THIS IS IT! Please have mercy upon your follow net readers; keep your opinions on this subject. -- / \ Bill Crews ( bc ) Cyb Systems, Inc \__/ Austin, Texas [ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucb-vax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (06/15/85)
> I say: keep them here where we can keep an eye on them.
But what on Earth does this have to do with net.lang.c, from which I am now
responding? net.micro and net.arch, yes, maybe; but please spare the rest
of us.
--
/ \ Bill Crews
( bc ) Cyb Systems, Inc
\__/ Austin, Texas
[ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucb-vax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bcpaulsc@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Scherf) (06/17/85)
I think I'd rather see the (heated) articles about 286 vs. 68k, than all the articles about whether to start a new group for it. Isn't there a group (net.news.group?) for discussing new group creation? If all the people who are complaining about the 286 vs. 68k articles spent that effort learning about awk, each one of them by now could have their very own program for preprocessing the news and marking as read all articles with a '6' and a '8' in either order. Paul Scherf, Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon, USA, paulsc@radio_flyer.TEK.UUCP