RE: 890 cpw per cpu

I think it's safe to say that the emperor is in shorts.

At 04:36 PM 4/29/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Scott,
>
>I am not arguing with you, but based on the numbers and what you said, this
>latest new generation cpu from IBM is not much faster, throughput wise,
>then what has been used for the last 2 years. That cant be true. Only IBM
>knows the answer.
>
>The news that there will be no more hardware announcements in 2002 was very
>disappointing.
>
>Steve Richter
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On
>Behalf Of Scott Mildenberger
>Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 3:30 PM
>To: 'midrange-l@midrange.com'
>Subject: RE: 890 cpw per cpu
>
>Steve,
>
>In Frank Soltis' book Fortress Rochester it explains this.  I can't remember
>all the technical details but basically two different processors can do the
>same amount of work but have widely differing processor speeds depending on
>their architecture, I think it relates to how deep the pipelines are.  With
>the Power4 processor IBM has changed the architecture and now the processor
>speed appears more in line with processors from Intel.  The older
>processor's architecture made them appear to be much slower than an Intel
>processor but they were doing much more work per MHz.  I would have to refer
>to that section in the book to get a better description of how this works.
>
>Scott Mildenberger
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
>To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
>visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
>or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
>Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
>at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.