19 Oct
1998
19 Oct
'98
5:35 a.m.
< But you can't build a *system* with that overall density.
Long standing problem but, the military did have machine approacing
that
density. Consider that once you got over a certain
size it was less
imporant to be small.
What about 386s? Did Intel outrun the mainframes with the 386, or were
there discrete transistor machines with better performance than that?
BTW, what did the Cray I use?
Yep.
I disagree that a 286 had more raw cpu performance than some of the big
transistor machines. I still remember the BOCES/LIRICS KA10 running
some
300 users. I've never seen a 286 run more than 4.
Same applies to IBM
2060s.
Allison
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
19 Oct
19 Oct
7:05 a.m.
What about 386s? Did Intel outrun the mainframes with
the 386, or were
there discrete transistor machines with better performance than that?
If one looks at the Linpack benchmark, the CDC 6600 was almost twice as
fast as a Sun 386i/250 (info lifted from
<http://lithos.gat.com/docview/linpack.bb>).
BTW, what did the Cray I use?
The Cray-1s used simple ECL chips - I think there were only four types in
the whole machine.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
12:38 p.m.
"Max Eskin" <maxeskin(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
What about 386s? Did Intel outrun the mainframes with
the 386, or were
there discrete transistor machines with better performance than that?
The raw CPU performance of thet 386 exceeds that of many (but not all) of the
discrete-transistor mainframes (and even IBM's SLT-based mainframes).
However, system-level performance is another matter. How many 386 machines
had intelligent I/O channels, *AND* took full advantage of them?
9414
days inactive
9414
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
eric＠brouhaha.com -
maxeskin＠hotmail.com -
william＠ans.net