Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!root
From: root@cca.ucsf.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: MIPS ratings of old machines
Message-ID: <1092@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>
Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 20:42:03 EST
Article-I.D.: ucsfcca.1092
Posted: Wed Nov 25 20:42:03 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 06:16:36 EST
References: <4839@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <169@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG> <919@csun.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Center, UCSF
Lines: 25
Keywords: CDC
Summary: Even older CDC machine ratings

In article <919@csun.UUCP>, aeusesef@csun.UUCP (sean fagan) writes:
> [I would e-mail, but I seem to have lost the address]
> In a previous article, somebody asked for MIPS ratings for old machines,
> CDC machines included.
  [Details on Cyber 170/X, 180/X, 7x0 machines reported.]
> 

Some tests we made on the even older CDC 6400 indicated 1 MIP
+or- 10% for a number of programs. The 6600 was about 3.5 times faster.
Of course, CDC 6xxx MIPS ratings are unlike those of many other
architectures.

The machines seemed faster because the OS in use at that time
emphasized low overhead compared to competing systems and peripherals
did not have to interrupt the main processor for service.
Indeed, the early OS's for those machine tried to do too much
in the PPU's (Peripheral Processing Units) and this slowed them.
Moving selected functions back to the CPU improved performance a lot.

Thos Sumner       (thos@cca.ucsf.edu)   BITNET:  thos@ucsfcca
(The I.G.)        (...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos)

If he says it's "user friendly" watch out; he's a con artist.

#include