Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!mfci!colwell From: colwell@mfci.uunet Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: The VAX Always Uses Fewer Instructions Summary: performance and the VAX Keywords: VAX MIPS Message-ID: <453@m3.mfci.UUCP> Date: 28 Jun 88 12:45:21 GMT References: <6921@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <28200161@urbsdc> <10595@sol.ARPA> Sender: root@mfci.UUCP Reply-To: colwell@mfci.UUCP (Bob Colwell) Organization: Multiflow Computer Inc., Branford Ct. 06405 Lines: 31 In article <12179@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >>I still haven't seen any good arguments as to why RISC is so much better or >>faster. > >Who cares about the arguments? The fact is that if you have somewhere >between $10,000 and $1,000,000, and want to buy the fastest machine you >can get for that, right now that machine is probably `RISC-based'. > >You can argue all you like as to why the Vax instruction set is better, >or why the 88000 instruction set is better, but the fastest Vax CPU from >DEC is slower than the fastest 88000 CPU from Motorola. If it were the >other way around, DEC would be in fine shape. (Maybe they just need >Motorola to design their next chip :-) .) >-- But DEC IS in fine shape. They sell 'way more VAXen/year than everybody else combined. No judgment on the 88000 implied, but users don't really care about performance per se. They want solutions to their problems, which almost always requires decent I/O (large and fast), acceptable reliability and service, and lots of available software. Something they don't tell you in your computer architecture classes -- people don't always automatically buy the machine with the highest performance (nor should they). Also, please cast a jaundiced eye on the phrase "RISC-based". I think it has almost attained the status of "content-free". Bob Colwell mfci!colwell@uunet.uucp Multiflow Computer 175 N. Main St. Branford, CT 06405 203-488-6090