Maxwell.Spangler@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Maxwell Spangler) (11/12/90)
I have a question: What does everyone think of the new SparcStation 2 series from SUN? From what I've heard, they top the next in one direct way: speed--they're supposedly 27Mips+. To this I ask, will that pose a major problem for NeXT sales, or will NeXT be able to continue to sell computer based on why I would buy them--my bias towards their overall environment. (I love NeXTSTEP. it's done RIGHT.) ------ Max.Sp -- Maxwell Spangler, Maxwell.Spangler@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org via The Black Cat's Shack's FidoNet<->Usenet Gateway blkcat.fidonet.org and Fidonet 1:109/401
dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) (11/13/90)
Maxwell Spangler asks if SPARC2's will pose a problem to NeXT....
Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't BUY a SPARC 2 for $3500...try $25K!
If your only concern is speed then buy an RS 6000 with NeXTStep it is
equal to a SPARC 2 and cheaper as well.
It really depends on what you want to use a computer for. I would think
that an 040 NeXTstation would be more than adequate for most general purpose
work like document processing, spreadsheets, etc. And even programming!
But if you want just FAST compile times then consider two NeXTs, one as your
frontend machine and one you just do nothing but run compiles on. Still
ought to be cheaper than buying a SPARC 2. Ah yes client/server computing,
what a concept.
So, if overall environment/applications & CO$T is important you'd pick a NeXT.
If NeXTStep & Speed are important you'll pick an RS 6000.
If Fast SPARC boxes impress you then you'll pick a SUN or SUN clone.
If you don't care for unix then you'll pick a 386/486 clone!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Williams -- dlw@atherton.com -- (408) 734-9822 x291
Atherton Technology -- The Software BackPlane
1333 Bordeaux Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94089
AIX,SunOS,Ultrix,VMS
*barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (11/13/90)
In article <2403.273E80BF@blkcat.fidonet.org> Maxwell.Spangler@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Maxwell Spangler) writes: > > >I have a question: > >What does everyone think of the new SparcStation 2 series from SUN? From >what I've heard, they top the next in one direct way: speed--they're >supposedly 27Mips+. > >To this I ask, will that pose a major problem for NeXT sales Only among people who have a liking for Suns to start with. The essential difference between a Sparc 1 and a Sparc 2 is a factor pf 2 in speed (the only difference?). I have been using a loaded Sparc 1 for half a year now---it was a reasonable improvement over the 3/110 I had before (X windows runs much better, and floating point went up by a factor of 3 or so), but another factor of 2 speed increase wouldn't be that noticable. Why get so excited about an intangible speed increase? When speeds go up by a factor of 10, let me know---but for now I think more productivity will come from a better development environment, and nifty, _affordable_, Apps. Sun doesn't come close to NeXT in this area. As someone else said, I need a workstation _and_ a personal computer---and I want them in the same box. A Sparc is only a workstation. Thats why my Sparc 1 will be replaced with a NeXT, shortly. -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov12.135515@Atherton.COM> dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) writes: >Maxwell Spangler asks if SPARC2's will pose a problem to NeXT.... > >Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't BUY a SPARC 2 for $3500...try $25K! > Just today a prof asked me to price out a few Unix boxes as an exercise for a wish list he's putting together. It was highly instructive. From a cursory examination of prices and configurations: PC hardware based: 486/25 with 330 MB HD, Dell Unix, VGA, tape drive, 8 MB memory:~$11,000, plus $475/year for support/ updates. Sun: The sales guy was not pushing the 1+ at all. Apparently they're positioning the 2 in the 1+'s old place. Anyway, a mono with 2 205 MB drives, 3.5" floppy, tape, Sun OS and documentation, and 16 MB was about $10,500 with full academic discount (40% off list, plus another 5% off for this being the first Sun in the department.) OK, you can probably save a few bucks by getting a third party drive in the 300-400 MB range. Didn't get a quote on updates. The SLC with 2 205's and a tape drive with 8 MB of memory was around $6,000. (the tape drive acounted for about $700 of this). NeXT: NeXT station with 1 105 MB drive and 3.5" floppy for $3,145 at the bookstore. Tack on another $1,500 for an external SCSI drive and case. NeXT has been more than generous on its update policy. So if you're looking for a generic Unix box at the low end, the NeXT winds up being cheaper than most other choices, and has a far better (IMHO) environment as well. It gives up speed to the SparcStation 2, but it's about 1/2 the price too. To us, that's important. Don McGregor | "I too seek the light, so long as it tastes mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu| great and is not too filling."
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov12.135515@Atherton.COM>, dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) writes: > Maxwell Spangler asks if SPARC2's will pose a problem to NeXT.... > > Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't BUY a SPARC 2 for $3500...try $25K! > > If your only concern is speed then buy an RS 6000 with NeXTStep it is > equal to a SPARC 2 and cheaper as well. If you're going to try to compare workstations, it would be better if you quote correct prices. The SPARCstation 2 is a 28 MIPS, 4 MFLOPS machine (according to Sun, at least) with a list price of $14,995. The RS/6000 Model 320 starts at $20,556 and, going by Dhrystones and SPECmarks, is exactly double the speed of the SPARCstation 330 (it's much better than the Sun at floating point, but that's a different story). True, both Sun and IBM have announced fast new systems: the SPARCstation 2 and RS/6000 Model 550 (if memory serves me correctly) - but these are very much out of NeXT's league right now and are not the platforms NeXT must beat to gain market share. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Declan McCullagh / NeXT Campus Consultant \ declan@remus.rutgers.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------
ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) (11/13/90)
> So if you're looking for a generic Unix box at the low end, the NeXT > winds up being cheaper than most other choices, and has a far better > (IMHO) environment as well. It gives up speed to the SparcStation 2, > but it's about 1/2 the price too. To us, that's important. Price out the the SPARCstation-IPC. It is a SPARCstation-1+ CPU (~16 mips), 8 bit color, 16 inch Trinitron monitor, 207 mbytes hard disk, 1.44 mbyte floppy for a list price of $9,995. That's less $5500 with your discount. And its been shipping in volume for a few months :-) The NeXT may be a better deal for you, but if you're comparing to Sun boxes, compare it against the appropriate box. -Ittai
brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett McCoy) (11/14/90)
In <726@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: >In article <2403.273E80BF@blkcat.fidonet.org> Maxwell.Spangler@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Maxwell Spangler) writes: >The essential difference between a Sparc 1 and a Sparc 2 >is a factor pf 2 in speed (the only difference?). I have been >using a loaded Sparc 1 for half a year now---it was a reasonable >improvement over the 3/110 I had before (X windows runs much better, >and floating point went up by a factor of 3 or so), but another >factor of 2 speed increase wouldn't be that noticable. According to the announcement that I read the Sparc 2 has approximately 3 times the I/O bandwidth as the Sparc 1+. This makes it a much better box to act as a server, and it also does better in environments where you get into a lot of paging (such as running OpenWindows). I have been using a loaded Sparc 1 for about 8 months or so also. I for one would definitely notice the 2 times increase in speed, since I definitely notice that increase when using our Solbourne 5/600. It's processors are each about double the speed of a Sparc 1, and when you can cut an hour long compile down to 30 minutes I would say that the extra speed is worth it. But I think I would be more likely to notice the increase in I/O bandwidth even more. -- When an eel bites your leg, and the pain makes you beg, that's a moray! If I spent as much time on my classes as I do reading news, I'd graduate. Brett McCoy Computing and Telecommunications Activities brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu Kansas State University
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) (11/14/90)
In article <7098@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) writes: > >Price out the the SPARCstation-IPC. It is a SPARCstation-1+ CPU >(~16 mips), 8 bit color, 16 inch Trinitron monitor, 207 mbytes >hard disk, 1.44 mbyte floppy for a list price of $9,995. That's >less $5500 with your discount. And its been shipping in volume >for a few months :-) > I asked them about the 1+, but the sales guy was not eager to push it for some reason. They said there would be long lead times on delivery; he mumbled something about it not being produced right now (changeover of their factory to SS2??). Do they have a mono version of the IPC, or are they using the SLC to fill that niche? (Besides, you'd need a couple hundred more MB of disk space on the IPC to compare them to my baseline). On the other hand, you get a couple slots with the IPC. Again, I don't know why they weren't eager to push it; they've certainly been advertising it enough in the trade mags. Maybe it was just the way the guy's sales quota was configured :-). Don McGregor | "I too seek the light, so long as it tastes mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu| great and is not too filling."
jcd@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Jean-Christophe Dhellemmes) (11/14/90)
Here are the specifications of the new SUN SPaRCstations: 40 MHz SPARC processor 28.5 MIPS 4.2 MFLOPS 16Meg RAM 207Meg SCSI Hard disk (16ms) 19" monochrome monitor 1.44 Mbyte 3-1/2" internal floppy disk -------------------------------------- $14995 list price GX model with color monitor Sony trinitron 16" -------------------------------------- $17995 list price GS model 24-bit color, 1152x900, 19" 76Hz monitor 150K 3-D vectors/sec and 20K 3-D Gouraud shaded polygons/sec OpenWindows available spring 1991 -------------------------------------- $26995 list price GT model color 108-bit plane frame buffer, 1280x1024, 21" 76Hz monitor 500K 3D vectors/sec and 100K Gouraud shaded polygons/sec Lots of specialised graphics hardware (antialiasing, 3D gouraud shading polygons with 32 light sources, etc.) Available spring 1991 -------------------------------------- $49995 list price I thinks NeXT is hardly ahead of other computer makers. The software makes a difference, that's true. The war is far from being over. What is NeXT's answer to 28MIPS ? A spreadsheet ? * ][]
smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith) (11/14/90)
>From: jcd@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Jean-Christophe Dhellemmes) >Keywords: SUN, sparc2 performance, competition >Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI >Here are the specifications of the new SUN SPaRCstations: >40 MHz SPARC processor >28.5 MIPS >4.2 MFLOPS >16Meg RAM >207Meg SCSI Hard disk (16ms) >19" monochrome monitor >1.44 Mbyte 3-1/2" internal floppy disk >-------------------------------------- >$14995 list price This is no deal. Squeezing blood from the sparc turnip. 28.5 MIPS is not particularly meaningful yet,and with a crapola interface and set-up gymnastics. Educational price on these here is $9K +-$500. If you want a workstation of this sort, get a MIPS magnum. Cheaper and faster. >I thinks NeXT is hardly ahead of other computer makers. The software makes a >difference, that's true. The war is far from being over. What is NeXT's >answer to 28MIPS ? A spreadsheet ? > * ][] Good grief. How can I stand it. Anyway, look for a 50 MHz version of the NeXTstation to be announced in a few months. Then I suppose someone will post about the new SG machine to be announced. Why isn't NeXT selling desktop CRAYs for $5,000? -Bill- Where is Bruce Henderson when you need him? -- __________________Prof. William V. Smith____________________ EMail: smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu or uunet!hamblin.math.byu.edu!smithw SMail: Math Dept. -- 314 TMCB; BYU; Provo, UT 84602 (USA) NeXTmail: smithw@mathnx.math.byu.edu Phone: +1 801 378 2061 FAX: +1 801 378 2800
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (11/14/90)
On 13-Nov-90 in Re: Next, 40, Sparc, 2 user J. Dhellemmes@spice.cs.c writes: >GS model 24-bit color, 1152x900, 19" 76Hz monitor >150K 3-D vectors/sec and 20K 3-D Gouraud shaded polygons/sec >OpenWindows available spring 1991 >-------------------------------------- >$26995 list price > Actually the NeXTdimension beats these stats (except resolution, but barely) 32-bit color, 1120x832, 16" monitor 30K 3-D Gouraud shaded polygons/sec ?? Around $12000 ??
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (11/14/90)
Oh, and a 40-80 MFLOP i860 on the NeXTdimension side.
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (11/15/90)
In article <11090@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jcd@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Jean-Christophe Dhellemmes) writes: | 40 MHz SPARC processor | 28.5 MIPS | 4.2 MFLOPS | 16Meg RAM | 207Meg SCSI Hard disk (16ms) | 19" monochrome monitor | 1.44 Mbyte 3-1/2" internal floppy disk | -------------------------------------- | $14995 list price | | I thinks NeXT is hardly ahead of other computer makers. The software makes a | difference, that's true. The war is far from being over. What is NeXT's | answer to 28MIPS ? A spreadsheet ? NeXT's answer to 28 MIPS is $4995. You can buy three NeXTstations for what it costs to buy one SPARC 2. That's a total of 45 MIPS across three processors, and besides, you get 315 megs of disk space, three monitors, six serial ports, 24 megs of RAM, and (hopefully) the Godzilla example App from NeXT which lets you compute one problem on all three machines :-) -- Glenn Reid RightBrain Software glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us PostScript/NeXT developers ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-851-1785
chouw@galaxy.cps.msu.edu (Wen Hwa Chou) (11/16/90)
In article <325@heaven.woodside.ca.us> glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) writes: > >NeXT's answer to 28 MIPS is $4995. You can buy three NeXTstations for >what it costs to buy one SPARC 2. That's a total of 45 MIPS across >three processors, and besides, you get 315 megs of disk space, three >monitors, six serial ports, 24 megs of RAM, and (hopefully) the Godzilla >example App from NeXT which lets you compute one problem on all three >machines :-) > NeXT's answer to Cray Y-MP is $4995. You can buy 1000 NeXTstations for what it costs to buy one Y-MP. That's a total of 15,000 MIPS across one thousand processors, and besides, you get 105 gigs of disk space, 1,000 monitors, 2000 serial ports, 8 gigs of RAM, and (hopefully) the Godzilla example App from NeXT which lets you compute one problem on all ne thousand machines :-) 8-D -- Wen
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/16/90)
>NeXT's answer to 28 MIPS is $4995. You can buy three NeXTstations for >what it costs to buy one SPARC 2. That's a total of 45 MIPS across >three processors, and besides, you get 315 megs of disk space, three >monitors, six serial ports, 24 megs of RAM, and (hopefully) the Godzilla >example App from NeXT which lets you compute one problem on all three >machines :-) That hope for a long time will be just that: hope. And hope does not improve computational power much. In any case, Sun also has a fast $4995 system. I think it is safe to say that for the moment NeXT has limited upgrade path. Thanasis -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: mitsolid@cs.nyu.edu (mitsolid%cs.nyu.edu@relay.cs.net) UUCP : ...!uunet!cmcl2!cs!mitsolid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppham@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Phuong Pham) (11/16/90)
List price for 28Mip Sparkos are $15000 each. You can buy 3 Nexts wich will give 45 Mips power. Thats the answer. (Thats also 3 monitors, 3 keyboards, 3 mice, 3 Kick SunOS (and all other) user interfaces in the face NeXT-Step + a enviroment that is emmidiatly useable w/ 3 Sets of software pakages.)
fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) (11/20/90)
In article <SMITHW.90Nov13181532@hamblin.hamblin.math.byu.edu> smithw@hamblin.ma th.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith) writes: >This is no deal. Squeezing blood from the sparc turnip. 28.5 MIPS is >not particularly meaningful yet,and with a crapola interface and set-up >gymnastics. Educational price on these here is $9K +-$500. If you want This is just the sort of uninformed invective that prejudices many folks against the NeXT. I have been interested in getting NeXTs into our operation, have used one for a couple of months, had public demos, been to NUGs, etc. Invariably, the NeXT NuTS have spouted these sorts of idiocies and alienated my superiors and other decision-makers around here. [1] "Squeezing blood from the sparc turnip" This statement would be better applied to the aging 68xxx CISC architecture, not the deliberately *scalable* RISC SPARC design. [2] "28.5 MIPS is not particularly meaningful" Pretty lame. Have you actually *seen* one of these process a postscript file or do a ray-trace or even just launch a simple application? I have, and they really embarass even an '040 NeXT. Here at NOAA, we do climate simulations that can take days - don't tell anyone around here that 28 MIPS isn't meaningful. [3] "and with a crapola interface" Again, I must doubt that you've used OpenWindows. It is in many ways superior (and in many ways inferior, too) to NeXTStep; hardly is it "crapola". Above all, it will run on *anything* supporting X. (We have used it on Macs, HPs, DECs, and (obviously) Suns across a huge network, even across the country over the internet. So far, to my knowledge, anything developed in NeXTStep will run only on (you guessed it) other NeXTs. [4] "and set-up gymnastics" The only thing you're even part right about. The NeXT is plug-and-play alright, as long as you've got a homogenous network of NeXTs. As the prez of the local NUG (also a full-time Sun/UNIX/network guru for the university) found out when he tried to hook up my demo machine to an NFS network here, those set up gymnastics can be as bad as any other UNIX machine. And even if he had had the time to succeed hooking it up, all we could have done was share files. Forget about any application interoperability. Before criticizing Suns, Macs, etc. proponents of the NeXT should become familiar with the other machines and the needs of users. Then, the realizable benefits of the NeXT could be described. Above all, it must be realized that the NeXT is not the right machine for EVERY user, that it has a (dare I use that proscribed word?) niche. My advice to all you NuTS out there (assuming you'd like to see more NeXTs sold): take a lesson from Mac history and from Sun history. Put that revolutionary zeal into providing the machine with the wide range of software and interoperability with other OSs on the Mac and the Sun (respectively). A machine with the Mac's software and the Sun's open architecture AND the NeXT's development environment would be a tough one to beat. rich -- ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" Univ of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA R/E/FS 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)497-6011 or 444-3168
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (11/20/90)
In article <30017@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) writes: >[1] "Squeezing blood from the sparc turnip" >This statement would be better applied to the aging 68xxx CISC architecture, >not the deliberately *scalable* RISC SPARC design. Religious dogma. Ho-hum. >[2] "28.5 MIPS is not particularly meaningful" >that can take days - don't tell anyone around here that 28 MIPS isn't >meaningful. With all the people that have posted on this, I'm amazed at how you've completely missed the point--no one is disputing the value of faster CPUs--what's being shot down is the fiction that MIPS is some sort of meaningful physical measure. >[3] "and with a crapola interface" >Again, I must doubt that you've used OpenWindows. It is in many ways >superior (and in many ways inferior, too) to NeXTStep; hardly is it >"crapola". Above all, it will run on *anything* supporting X. (We have >used it on Macs, HPs, DECs, and (obviously) Suns across a huge network, >even across the country over the internet. So far, to my knowledge, anything >developed in NeXTStep will run only on (you guessed it) other NeXTs. *I've* used OpenWindows and agree that's it's crapola--it's also deathly slow--NextStep on a '030 cube compared to OpenWindows on a "screaming SPARC" that "wins every benchmark by several times" still provides vastly superior response time--I'd say NextStep is about an order of magnitude faster. And a lot more powerful. Let's recast this for the popular masses: "Microsoft Windows is in many ways superior ... to the Macintosh interface. After all, it will run on *anything* supporting MS-DOS. (We have used it on IBMs, Compaqs, Tandys ...) So far, to my knowledge, anything developed with the Macintosh toolbox will only run on (you guessed it) other Macintoshes." And yes, I've seen NextStep run on IBM RS/6000s. RISC machines. RISC machines that leave your Suns in the dust. So there. >[4] "and set-up gymnastics" >The only thing you're even part right about. The NeXT is plug-and-play >alright, as long as you've got a homogenous network of NeXTs. As the prez >of the local NUG (also a full-time Sun/UNIX/network guru for the university) >found out when he tried to hook up my demo machine to an NFS network here, >those set up gymnastics can be as bad as any other UNIX machine. And even >if he had had the time to succeed hooking it up, all we could have done was >share files. Forget about any application interoperability. I helped set up a workshop in February where we connected Suns and NeXTs for the first time. It took about *5* minutes to get the whole thing working--and that's not just NFS. We also set things up so the Suns could print to a NeXT, since NeXTs come with TRANSCRIPT, and Suns... well, Sun wanted another $1800. (This was also right after I finished porting MazeWar to the NeXT, and, needless to say, a rather dramatic example of just how well these "dissimilar" platforms would work together.) We spent some time tweaking the printer some more, but not a whole lot. In my experience it's always been harder to set up Suns than NeXTs, and there's a lot more that seems to go wrong on the Suns (especially with YP/NIS, yecch). When the Color NeXT products start shipping in quantity, and we can start doing our must-have-color work on them, Suns are going to look a lot less attractive. Most of our users really don't care WHICH window system is running as long as they can get their work done. They don't want X for the NeXT, they want good molecular modeling software, etc. Where are PV-Wave and Biograf? I seriously doubt they'd be that difficult to port. Get on those vendors... -=EPS=-
jack@lucy.claremont.edu (11/20/90)
In article <30017@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) writes: > This is just the sort of uninformed invective that prejudices many folks > against the NeXT. I have been interested in getting NeXTs into our > operation, have used one for a couple of months, had public demos, > been to NUGs, etc. Invariably, the NeXT NuTS have spouted these sorts > of idiocies and alienated my superiors and other decision-makers around here. > > [1] "Squeezing blood from the sparc turnip" > This statement would be better applied to the aging 68xxx CISC architecture, > not the deliberately *scalable* RISC SPARC design. > > [2] "28.5 MIPS is not particularly meaningful" > Pretty lame. Have you actually *seen* one of these process a postscript > file or do a ray-trace or even just launch a simple application? I have, and > they really embarass even an '040 NeXT. Here at NOAA, we do climate simulations > that can take days - don't tell anyone around here that 28 MIPS isn't > meaningful. > I don't wish to start a flame war (although its a little late for that) but I want to point out that NeXT users are not alone in thinking that the SPARCStation 2 is not a particularly good computer for the money. The quotes that follow are from UNIX Today!, November 12, 1990, page 88: It appears that Sun is able to come close to the integer performance of our RS/6000, but to do so, they require a 40-MHZ clock rate, versus the 20 MHz on our POWERStation 320 ---Judy Radlinsky, IBM They're running that thing at 40 MHz generating 28 MIPS. That's anemic. That's bad. That's terrible. ---Paul Bemis, program manager, HP/Apollo They're basically coming up to parity with the DECStation 5000 now. And we're in the middle of our next generation of product development. ---Charlie Giorgetti, marketing manager, DEC (Noting that the 2GX is still offering wireframe graphics). That's just not something we view as competitive in the graphics marketplace. (Talking about the 2GS and 2GT). They don't have an affordable starting point. ---Mark Perry, exec. v.p., Silcon Graphics At 40 MHz the SPARC Chip appears to close to the edge of its performance. How much faster can you push the clock speed? 60 MHz? 80 MHz? Another problem is when you begin to up the clock speeds you naturally raise the cost of the other components and wind up with a more expensive system. Sun may be making a mistake by sticking to the SPARC architecture. And while it is nice to be binary compatiable, it can be the kiss of death (look at VAX/VMS which recently embarked on a program for a new architecture). I think that it would mistake for NeXT to stay with the 68XXX architecture (88XXX might be a good choice) for very much longer. And NeXT has not, to my knowledge, made any public commitment to staying with the 68XXX unlike SUN. For some users, there is a real need for speed. And I don't belive that 2 (or even 3) machines at 15 MIPS is equal to a machine running at 30 MIPS. And for some applications (weather simulations are just one) you need all the speed you can get. However, right now, I think that 15 MIPS is adequate for the average user (This could change with Open Systems). But if I were looking for a box at about 25 Mips I would not get a SPARCStation 2. There are a number of other Boxes (Magnum 3000, DECStation 5000, RISC/6000) that look at lot more attractive in that price range. ---Jack Jack@Hmcvax (Bitnet) jack@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Internet) jack@134.173.4.32 (also Internet)
khb@loglady.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman fpgoup) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov19.173120.1@lucy.claremont.edu> jack@lucy.claremont.edu writes:
... >
I don't wish to start a flame war (although its a little late for that) but I
want to point out that NeXT users are not alone in thinking that the
SPARCStation 2 is not a particularly good computer for the money. The quotes
that follow are from UNIX Today!, November 12, 1990, page 88:
It appears that Sun is able to come close to the integer
performance of our RS/6000, but to do so, they require a
40-MHZ clock rate, versus the 20 MHz on our POWERStation 320
---Judy Radlinsky, IBM
They're running that thing at 40 MHz generating 28 MIPS.
That's anemic. That's bad. That's terrible.
---Paul Bemis, program manager, HP/Apollo
Ah, unbiased marketing folks.
Misc answers, not all equally good. Use with care, salt etc..
1) A claimed SPARC advantage was easy scaling .... so
why is hitting fast clocks suddenly bad ???? ;>
2) there are several ways to make machines go fast, varying from
strange ISA's, fast clocks, clever implementations (multiple instructions
per clock, superscalar, etc.) and various interactions with the
software (mostly the compiler and libraries).
The Multiflow machines ran up to 50mflops (sustained) with an 8mhz
clock. Had they stuck around, 16mhz and 20mhz were plausible....
with their machine 40mhz would have been a while in coming
(guessing ;>). Should one have predicted that the 386 would blow
the MF away on applications due to its higher clock ? Should one
have predicted that the MF would quickly get high clock rates ?
Neither prediction would have been very reasonable.
When evaluting a system, any sensible purchaser will test something
they care about on the various machines. How the machines go fast
is mostly (entirely ?) the vendors buisness. There are obvious
exceptions.... week long compiles are user visible ;>
SPARC vendors, in the last rounds chose to go for quick clocks. Within
limits this can be the "easy" road. At HotChips
SPEC (the company, not the benchmarking group) gave some data about
their 200+mhz SPARC chipset. Past 2ns clocks (400mhz) things get
very hard ;>
Other vendors have done other things. Again, from HotChips
the LSI/Hyundai/Metaflow project, which is a superscalar
machine with out of order execution. This is very nifty technology,
partly made possible by virtue of not having an overly polluted
instruction set. At 40mhz they claimed at LEAST triple
the performance of the sparcstation 2, a 40mhz box. Perhaps
significantly better. Sun has not announced any plans wrt to this
chip (nor the 200+mhz SPEC set) but one would think that Sun won't
insist on using anything worse (at similar price points, etc.)
Matsushita, via Solbourne, has done a chip (shipping in their
new desktops) with wide data paths and multiple stuff on a chip
(I forget the details; but higher integration is often a way
to get higher performance).
Solarix (I think) has announced what they call the "a module" which
is a chipset+cache on a carrier which plugs into a board.... thereby
making upgrades in place plausible (ala the HP 030 to 040; which
has had to tide HP users ... since there have not been 040's which
meet HP's quality standards).
I would not venture to guess which of the paths Sun is chosing....
but there will be lots of SPARC stuff to chose from. Many of the
tricks in the IBM box apply quite handily to other ISA's.... (e.g.
register renaming, etc.); admittedly there are things which
aren't "portable".
3) Exercise for the student. Locate a 4/60, a 4/65, a 4/75, and an
IBM 320.
Pop the tops of the SPARCs off. Compare the complexity <hint, they
all look mighty similar, all quite simple>. Now pop the top off the
IBM. Looks rather apallingly complicated. One might venture to guess
that building their 20mhz box was harder (more parts+more steps usually
implies greater cost, all other things being equal) than building
the SPARC 40mhz box.
All in all, it's our job (as designers) to build SYSTEMS (hw+sw) which
perform well on real problems. It's the job of salescritters and
marketeers to edcuate folks what to look at. Mhz, MIPS and LINPACK flops
aren't it .... we will all suffer for a long time for not having moved
the discussion to more sensible things ages ago (e.g. lfk's,
specmarks, etc.).
....
They're basically coming up to parity with the DECStation
5000 now. And we're in the middle of our next generation of
product development.
---Charlie Giorgetti, marketing manager, DEC
And how many DS5000 have shipped ? It is easy to announce machines, it
is harder to build and ship them. I'd guess that by March (if not
sooner) the number of 40mhz SPARC boxes will be at least 2x the number
of 33mhz DS5000's. Also, one wonders how much Charlie knows about Sun
project plans ;> It seems to be that he is implying that such programs
are serial, rather than parallel or pipelined. DEC doesn't
operate serially, why should anyone else ?
Don't get me wrong. The NeXT is a fun box (more for the sw than for
any cleverness in the hw). I wish you all well. I do hope, for my
sanity if nothing else, that you find something more reasonable than
mhz rates, 10 line benchmarks, etc. to discuss.
If you must chat about benchmarking, there is comp.benchmarks which is
dedicated to this sort of thing; and the level of discourse has been
mercifully higher.
Cheers.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith H. Bierman kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM | khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM
SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33 | (415 336 2648)
Mountain View, CA 94043brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett McCoy) (11/20/90)
In <1990Nov19.173120.1@lucy.claremont.edu> jack@lucy.claremont.edu writes: >The quotes >that follow are from UNIX Today!, November 12, 1990, page 88: [ obvious quotes deleted ] >At 40 MHz the SPARC Chip appears to close to the edge of its >performance. How much faster can you push the clock speed? 60 MHz? >80 MHz? Another problem is when you begin to up the clock speeds you >naturally raise the cost of the other components and wind up with a >more expensive system. Sun may be making a mistake by sticking to >the SPARC architecture. And while it is nice to be binary >compatiable, it can be the kiss of death (look at VAX/VMS which >recently embarked on a program for a new architecture). I think that >it would mistake for NeXT to stay with the 68XXX architecture (88XXX >might be a good choice) for very much longer. And NeXT has not, to >my knowledge, made any public commitment to staying with the 68XXX >unlike SUN. >For some users, there is a real need for speed. And I don't belive >that 2 (or even 3) machines at 15 MIPS is equal to a machine running >at 30 MIPS. And for some applications (weather simulations are just >one) you need all the speed you can get. However, right now, I think >that 15 MIPS is adequate for the average user (This could change with >Open Systems). But if I were looking for a box at about 25 Mips I >would not get a SPARCStation 2. There are a number of other Boxes >(Magnum 3000, DECStation 5000, RISC/6000) that look at lot more >attractive in that price range. I don't see any quotes around the preceeding paragraphs, but they are almost word for word from the article in UNIX Today!. Just to let it be known, the quotes aren't the only thing taken from UNIX Today!, these two paragraphs appear to be also. -- When an eel bites your leg, and the pain makes you beg, that's a moray! If I spent as much time on my classes as I do reading news, I'd graduate. Brett McCoy Computing and Telecommunications Activities brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu Kansas State University
dkoski@hercules.as.arizona.edu (David Koski) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov19.173120.1@lucy.claremont.edu> jack@lucy.claremont.edu writes: >At 40 MHz the SPARC Chip appears to close to the edge of its performance. How >much faster can you push the clock speed? 60 MHz? 80 MHz? Another problem is >when you begin to up the clock speeds you naturally raise the cost of the other >components and wind up with a more expensive system. Sun may be making a Well, not really. An asychronous bus will allow slower parts to be used with faster parts. David Koski
bostrov@storm.UUCP (Vareck Bostrom) (11/21/90)
In article <30017@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) writes: >[2] "28.5 MIPS is not particularly meaningful" >Pretty lame. Have you actually *seen* one of these process a postscript >file or do a ray-trace or even just launch a simple application? I have, and >they really embarass even an '040 NeXT. Here at NOAA, we do climate simulations >that can take days - don't tell anyone around here that 28 MIPS isn't >meaningful. Yes, I have. At least, several ray trace jobs. Yes, 4.0 MFLOPS does make a difference over 3.0 or 2.0 MFLOPS. I wouldn't say "really embarass" an 040 NeXT, however. But there's always faster, and always cheaper. I could in no possible way afford a SPARCstation 2, though I am impressed with it's performance. If you want to really embarass any machine, compare the SPARC station 2 to an IBM Rios machine. The Rios that I have run ray traces on (a 320) shot through them in half the time that the SS2 did. So why aren't people rushing out to buy Rios machines instead of SPARCstations? (" I personally couldnt afford it, and I hate AIX to boot. ") I think that someone (or some department) that has purchased SPARCstation 1's and 1+'s last year will buy SPARCstation 2's. There is no reason not to. I think perhaps those who are about to buy their first series of workstations may consider the NeXT also, and perhaps buy it. While we're on the subject of scalable, when I am tired of my ("on it's way") NeXT's performance (in a year or so) I will most likely be able to put in another CPU board, perhaps with an 88000 in it, or 68050 or a 50 MHz 68040. >[3] "and with a crapola interface" >Again, I must doubt that you've used OpenWindows. It is in many ways >superior (and in many ways inferior, too) to NeXTStep; hardly is it >"crapola". Above all, it will run on *anything* supporting X. (We have >used it on Macs, HPs, DECs, and (obviously) Suns across a huge network, >even across the country over the internet. So far, to my knowledge, anything >developed in NeXTStep will run only on (you guessed it) other NeXTs. Not entirely true. I've seen NeXTstep on a Rios machine. But yes, much of what you say is true. I imagine that the preference of OpenWindows vs NeXTstep is personal opinion. I favor NeXTstep myself, though I think both are ok. If I had it my way, my system wouldn't be running NeXTstep or Openwindows... just plain old Xwindows and twm. >[4] "and set-up gymnastics" >The only thing you're even part right about. The NeXT is plug-and-play >alright, as long as you've got a homogenous network of NeXTs. As the prez >of the local NUG (also a full-time Sun/UNIX/network guru for the university) >found out when he tried to hook up my demo machine to an NFS network here, >those set up gymnastics can be as bad as any other UNIX machine. And even >if he had had the time to succeed hooking it up, all we could have done was >share files. Forget about any application interoperability. >Before criticizing Suns, Macs, etc. proponents of the NeXT should become >familiar with the other machines and the needs of users. Then, the realizable >benefits of the NeXT could be described. Above all, it must be realized that >the NeXT is not the right machine for EVERY user, that it has a (dare I use >that proscribed word?) niche. I think I am far more familiar with Sun than NeXT, as I have used them far more often than NeXTs. My father uses a SPARCstation (1+) for engineering work, needs the performance, and loves his Sun. Wouldn't change for the world... but many PC users wouldn't change for the world either. What they have works, albiet slowly, so they don't want to change. I really don't think that NeXT is going to push it's way into the niches that are occupied by sunlovers-- those engineers/whatever who need serious performance, the right software (that they are already using) and so on. The SPARCstations (even the SLC) offer serious performance, software is available. I think the NeXT is aimed more toward the High end PC/low end workstation (Sun 3/80) type of market. Well, we'll see. - Vareck
fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov19.173120.1@lucy.claremont.edu> jack@lucy.claremont.edu writes: >SPARCStation 2 is not a particularly good computer for the money. The quotes >that follow are from UNIX Today!, November 12, 1990, page 88: > > ---Judy Radlinsky, IBM > ---Paul Bemis, program manager, HP/Apollo > ---Charlie Giorgetti, marketing manager, DEC > ---Mark Perry, exec. v.p., Silcon Graphics Hmmm... unbiased observers, no doubt. :-) -- ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" Univ of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA R/E/FS 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)497-6011 or 444-3168
gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov19.173120.1@lucy.claremont.edu> jack@lucy.claremont.edu writes: >want to point out that NeXT users are not alone in thinking that the >SPARCStation 2 is not a particularly good computer for the money. The quotes >that follow are from UNIX Today!, November 12, 1990, page 88: > > It appears that Sun is able to come close to the integer > performance of our RS/6000, but to do so, they require a > 40-MHZ clock rate, versus the 20 MHz on our POWERStation 320 > ---Judy Radlinsky, IBM Hmmm... Well, I use SPARCs and RS/6000s every day. Both are exceedingly fast machines. > They're running that thing at 40 MHz generating 28 MIPS. > That's anemic. That's bad. That's terrible. > ---Paul Bemis, program manager, HP/Apollo Interesting quote from a company that produces 50 MHz 030 boxes. I do, however, agree that emphasis should be placed on reducing cycles per instruction as opposed to cranking up the clock rate. That's what the IBM RS/6000 was designed to do. They achieved their goal. > They're basically coming up to parity with the DECStation > 5000 now. And we're in the middle of our next generation of > product development. > ---Charlie Giorgetti, marketing manager, DEC Hmmm... I don't know about this one. I also use DECstations (3100s and 5000s) every day. Our 5000s are not currently set up in the optimal fashion, and this expresses itself in poor performance. > (Noting that the 2GX is still offering wireframe graphics). > That's just not something we view as competitive in the > graphics marketplace. (Talking about the 2GS and 2GT). They > don't have an affordable starting point. > ---Mark Perry, exec. v.p., Silcon Graphics Can't argue here. One needs one's box for next to nothing 8-) >At 40 MHz the SPARC Chip appears to close to the edge of its performance. How >much faster can you push the clock speed? 60 MHz? 80 MHz? Another problem is SPARC is not scalable only in clockrate. >when you begin to up the clock speeds you naturally raise the cost of the other >components and wind up with a more expensive system. Sun may be making a >mistake by sticking to the SPARC architecture. And while it is nice to be >binary compatiable, it can be the kiss of death (look at VAX/VMS which recently >embarked on a program for a new architecture). I think that it would mistake >for NeXT to stay with the 68XXX architecture (88XXX might be a good choice) for >very much longer. And NeXT has not, to my knowledge, made any public commitment >to staying with the 68XXX unlike SUN. Unlike SUN? I assume you are talking about Sun's statement that it will be going strictly SPARC. >For some users, there is a real need for speed. And I don't belive that 2 (or >even 3) machines at 15 MIPS is equal to a machine running at 30 MIPS. And for >some applications (weather simulations are just one) you need all the speed you >can get. However, right now, I think that 15 MIPS is adequate for the average >user (This could change with Open Systems). But if I were looking for a box at >about 25 Mips I would not get a SPARCStation 2. There are a number of other >Boxes (Magnum 3000, DECStation 5000, RISC/6000) that look at lot more attractive >in that price range. > >---Jack > >Jack@Hmcvax (Bitnet) >jack@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Internet) >jack@134.173.4.32 (also Internet) Ralph Seguin gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu 536 South Forest Apt. #915 gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 662-4805
peb@Autodesk.COM (Paul Baclaski) (11/22/90)
In article <1027@toaster.SFSU.EDU>, eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: > In article <30017@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu > >This statement would be better applied to the aging 68xxx CISC architecture, > >not the deliberately *scalable* RISC SPARC design. > Religious dogma. Ho-hum. Perhaps you don't understand what scalable means. Sun is committed to doubling performance for a constant price every 2 years and they are doing it. At least 30% of their customers are software developers who really like to get faster compiles and higher MIPS does a whole lot in this area. CISC machines are not scalable so they take considerable effort to crank up the clock speed. The old rule of having a megabyte per MIP is a pretty good one. I just got 8 more meg in my sparcstation at work and now the disk isn't busy all the time. Now that I have 16 meg, I will be checking out OpenWindows; I think it really requires that much memory. > >that can take days - don't tell anyone around here that 28 MIPS isn't > >meaningful. > And yes, I've seen NextStep run on IBM RS/6000s. RISC machines. > RISC machines that leave your Suns in the dust. So there. You are correct that the IBM PowerStations (where did they get that name?) are faster (and more expensive), especially in floating point. Their machines are superscalers which execute 1.2 instructions per cycle, so they can squeeze a little more out of the clock cycle. Now that Sun has customers interested in floating point, they are designing machines that do that--4MFLOPS for the sparcstation 2. Note also that for random disk access tests, the sparcstation 1 (as reviewed in Unix Review), had better performance by an order of magnitude when compared to systems designed to be servers (a machine from MIPS). Although there are lots of people who seem to think MIPS are great comparison factors, people might not be a dumb as you think--for instance, if you already use a vendors workstation and they make it twice as fast in MIPS, then the new machine will be faster for you. When comparing machines from different vendors, lots of other things come into play. For instance, I'm trying to decide whether I should get a NeXT or a Sparcstation for home use. If I get a Sun, I can get all the benefits of a world class operating system and I know where they are going. If I go with NeXT, then I get NextStep which is better than Guide (Sun's tool for creating user interfaces) because it is easier to modify old programs with Guide and NextStep also has some neat button arrangment methods. It seems that both machines have the problem that software vendors charge a lot for software (based on what you paid for the computer, not based on what it costs to develope the software...). NeXT still has a big hole--no quality debugging environment. It is amazing that they have not done anything in this area in 2.5 years. NeXT will probably always lag behind Sun in MIPS, but their philosophy of having a better common denomenator (what comes bundled, hardware and software wise) is probably their most attractive quality. Anyway, enough verbiage on this dead horse. Paul
gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (11/23/90)
In article <779@autodesk.COM> peb@Autodesk.COM (Paul Baclaski) writes: >You are correct that the IBM PowerStations (where did they get that name?) POWERstation is a better spelling. POWER is an acronym standing for Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC. >Paul See ya, Ralph Ralph Seguin gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu 536 South Forest Apt. #915 gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 662-4805
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (11/26/90)
>[3] "and with a crapola interface" >Again, I must doubt that you've used OpenWindows. It is in many ways Maybe he hasn't. But I have, and it's crap, and there's little available for it in the way of applications. I use it every day at work, and when I come home at night to my NeXT I breath a sigh of relief. How many useful applications that run on the Sun are actually OW apps? 1-2-3? No. dBASE? no. Island Graphics' stuff is about it. How many useful apps run on the cube that use NeXTStep? Answer - all of them. If you're running OpenWindows on a Macintosh, you're doing it in an X Window which is hardly a mainstream application of this technology. What we're concerned with here in the NeXT world is not niche engineering applications but general purpose horizontal applications like those found on the mac and the PC, used by average users - not techies. The latter make up the majority of Sun's market and always will (refer tio the abortive attempts to get into mainstream applications by Sun - Solaris et al). If climate simulations aren't a "niche" application what in the hell is? - g