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