rg@gandp (Dick Gill) (03/15/91)
I have a question regarding the relative performance of model 320 vs model 520. Since they both use the same processor, I have (naively?) assumed that similarly configured systems in terms of RAM, hard disc, etc. would perform similarly. Not so, according to second-hand stories I hear from the field, where THEY say that 320 performance is weak while the 520 is a strong performer. Can anyone shed the light of real experience on this question? Thanks. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dick Gill Gill & Piette, Inc. (703)761-1163 ..uunet!gandp!rg
scott@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Holt) (03/15/91)
In article <346@gandp> rg@gandp.UUCP (Dick Gill) writes: > >Not so, according to second-hand stories I hear from the field, >where THEY say that 320 performance is weak while the 520 is a >strong performer. > >Can anyone shed the light of real experience on this question? Well, I don't have a 520 to benchmark, so what I say here is just speculation. If the particular process you have is I/O bound, then the disks in the two machines will make a difference. Its not the amount of disk space that matters, but their relative speeds. If you have a slower disk in one that the other, then an I/O bound task will have different performance characteristics. I don't know the exact details, but there are differences in the performance characteristics of the disks you can get in the machines - between some, the numbers differ significantly. - Scott -- This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. Scott Holt Internet: scott@prism.gatech.edu Georgia Tech UUCP: ..!gatech!prism!scott Office of Information Technology, Technical Services