Author: Alex F. (dialup-62.67.160.116.Dial1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net)
Date: 12-23-2001 14:13
Hi there,
just the MIPS won't give a picture of how fast a computer is.
Let's start with an easy comparison: CISC CPUs (like the 68060)
have a more powerful instruction-set than RISK CPUs (=REDUCED Instruction set CPU),
so the RISC processor has to emulate some CISC-instructions which lasts 2, 3 or even 5 instructions...
(RISCs can be cycled much faster though).
Then there are those registers; many registers mean you can use more often fast instructions using them.
Also, which grafix-capability a computer has is very important. The perfomance of a Falcon on 320*200*16 is about
four times better than the performance of an ST. But who uses ST-low on a Falcon?
Or even compare it to the 8-bit generation, when there was no graphic-display but only a text-display;
the whole screen consisted of 40*24=8160 Bytes. Even without hardscrolling my C-16 could manage this.
And I don't trust the MIPS in an other way:
have a look at benchmark-tests of G3/G4 in comparison to Pentium3/4.
The MIPS are about the same, the benchmarks say the Motorola CPUs are twice as fast!
And finally have a look at those weird 3D-shooters on PCs. Those vectorgrafix couldn't be managed by a Pentium III alone.
Much work does the gafix-card here.
After all I had no idea how a program could count the number of instructions per second on a CISC like the 68k.
(on a RISC this would be no problem coz the instructions have all the same lenght).
I also wish everyone a merry christmas,
to all Frank Zappa fans as well as to all Front 242 fans.
Except for Microsoft fans.
Alex
|
