Re: How are CPU Speed and Overall CPW Related? -- MIDRANGE-L

Point I was trying to make is a PC basically runs a single task.  Even a 
400 with no users on it has a lot of jobs running, as you can see from 
WRKACTJOB count of active jobs.
Besides, CPW does measure the overall performance of the vehicle - not the 
"engine".

....Neil





"Peter Dow" <pcdow@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
2001/05/02 21:39
Please respond to MIDRANGE-L

 
        To:     <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: How are CPU Speed and Overall CPW Related?


Hi Neil,

I think the analogy would be comparing horsepower of the engine, not 
overall
performance of the vehicle.

Regards,
Peter Dow
Dow Software Services, Inc.
909 425-0194 voice
909 425-0196 fax


----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Palmer" <neilp@dpslink.com>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: How are CPU Speed and Overall CPW Related?


> PC vs 400.  You're trying to compare the performance of a motorcycle to 
a
> bus.  Are zero to 60 times meaningful in this comparison?
> What about miles per gallon.  Now what about passenger miles per gallon.
> Admittedly with one passenger in the bus the numbers may not look good 
in
> comparison to the motorcycle - but what if you need to move 60 
passengers.
>
>
> ...Neil
> .
>
>
>
>
> "Nathan M. Andelin" <nathanma@haaga.com>
> Sent by: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
> 2001/05/02 18:03
> Please respond to MIDRANGE-L
>
>
>         To:     <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: How are CPU Speed and Overall CPW Related?
>
>
> > From: Jim Damato <jdamato@dollargeneral.com>
>
> > In your opinion, what do you think is the reason that
> > IBM is governing the CPU?  Is there a technical reason
> > why they would want to do it?
>
> With all due respect to Alexei Pytel, I believe "governor" is the 
correct
> term.  My hypothesis is that the standard CPU would do more, given more
> cache.  I can't think of a technical reason for limiting cache.  But 
maybe
> there's a business reason, which I don't understand.  I'd like an
> explanation too.
>
> I believe that if IBM offered better performance for the price, then it
> would attract new customers to the platform.  But IBM is in a better
> position than I to make that call.
>
> > Is this what you mean, or are you talking about something
> > far less nefarious?
>
> The thing that bothers me is the obfuscation.  Customers should have 
good
> information, but they don't.  For example, I recall a thread in which
> Patrick Townsend expressed confusion over a C program he wrote to do 
some
> work with stream files.  He compiled the program to run on both Intel 
and
> AS/400.  It blew him away that the Intel processor offered so much
> superior
> performance.  Now it makes sense to me.  The AS/400 had a much slower
> processor, which was also probably bridled.
>
> I believe that kind of confusion is widespread.  Customers believe they
> are
> buying "Big Iron", but what they getting is "Little Copper".
>
> I appreciate how IBM provides CPW figures to compare one model to the
> next.
> But IBM seems to either hide or obscure numbers that compare the AS/400 
to
> Intel.
>
> Nathan.
>
-


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---