On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:07:07 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: > > ... The original question was, however, why people >claim that the processor is slow....
Since you are one of the people making that claim, perhaps you can answer the question. I would suggest that it is because some people look at raw clock rates. You might want to google for "megahertz myth". >As I said in my first post on this topic, the comparison that would be valid >is system thoughput, not processor speed. Yes, you did say that, but also, On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:06:01 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: > >The mainframe MPU *is* slower than other platforms .... > Itanium likely could emulate zArch instructions faster than >native zSeries systems can execute them... Then, On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:44:34 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: > >Timothy Sipples wrote: > > >> Dean Kent: >> >Itanium likely could emulate zArch instructions faster than >> >native zSeries systems can execute them.... >> >> No. >> > >If you have any published numbers to verify that, it would be very nice to >see them. The pace of improvements in the x86 world are quite stunning, >because of the competitive nature of things. I find it hard to believe >that IBM would spend the money for mainframe processors to keep pace when >there isn't really much of an incentive to do so. Again, if there are any >reliable comparisons between these processors, it would be great to see >them. Otherwise, all we have are assertions. First of all, Itanium is not "in the x86 world." Secondly, you have obviously not been keeping up with the improvements in mainframe technology over the last several years. Those improvements are indeed quite stunning. Far from "keeping pace," mainframe technology has been leading. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
