On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:51:42 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tom Marchant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:10 AM >Subject: Re: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article >> >> >> >> You are confusing MIPS and MHz. MIPS may be meaningless, but MHz >> means >> >> far less. >> > >> >No, I am not. >> >> That's funny. I could have swown that you wrote, "a 1.4GHz P4 ... >> SPECint_rate was 5.80.... a 2.93GHz Intel Core Duo processor was 63.6. >> Obviously one cannot make a direct comparison between MIPS and SPEC >> rate.... >> > >Yes. I did. I wrote "SPECint_rate was 5.80.... SPECint_rate was 63.6". >You are missing the forest for the trees. The *performance* comparison is >the SPECint_rate score. The MHz number was given as a reference in case >anyone wished to look it up. > >So, no, I am not confusing MHz with performance.
I didn't say you were. I said you were confusing MIPS with MHz. Had you said, "one cannot make a direct comparison between MHz and SPEC rate...." we'd have had no disagreement here, but you didn't say MHz, you said MIPS. -- 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
