[rc5] Re: Supercomputers & Bovine, Q&A

Eric P. Anderson crusader at mo.net
Mon Aug 4 22:08:47 EDT 1997

On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Ryan Dumperth wrote:

> At 07:53 PM 8/4/97 -0500, Eric P. Anderson wrote:
> >On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Murray Stokely wrote:
> > 
> >> It probably would have been easier to point out that his entire
> >> argument that RISC is better was pointless especially in this
> >> context.  CISC machines such as x86's are outperforming RISC machines
> >> such as alphas that run at over twice the clockspeed.
> >
> >This is nonsense.  Please show me an x86 chip that can outrun a 600
> >mhz Alpha. 
> Taken from <http://www.llamas.net/rc5/speed.html>
> NT     Digital DPWS 433a  Alpha 21164 at 433 Mhz  485000 keys/sec
> NT 4.0 Intel              Pentium Pro at 233 Mhz  546855 keys/sec

The only reason why the Pentium Pro beats the Alpha in terms of RC5 speed
is because the Alpha doesn't have a rotate left instruction.  In terms of
normal system performance, the Alpha blows the ppro out of the water.  I
think that the next generation Alpha (the 21264) is supposed to add a
rotate left instruction. 

To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.

More information about the rc5 mailing list