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