Aunc.3264 net.works utzoo!decvax!harpo!duke!unc!wm Tue Apr 13 15:29:05 1982 another view of mips Why is everyone attacking using the term MIP to describe computers? Why is this term any more or less meaningful than using watts RMS (truly a meaningless term if there ever was one) to describe a stereo system? Why one of the very people who was attacking the use of MIPS even used the term MHz to describe a processor chip. Most computers have a minimum instruction time that applies mainly to register to register operations. How many of these instructions a certain processor can execute in a second is every bit as meaningful as how fast it's clock runs, or even how many Whetstones it can execute. How many people run Whetstones in real life? Does a Whetstone bear any resemblance to the computations that most people will run on their computers? Things like text editors, compilers and such? Certainly I/O bandwidth is important. But what I hear coming over the net is that you should not even mention the term mips unless you are a computer salesman trying to impress someone who has more money than sense. Many people have spent much time trying to come up with more meaningful measures of performance, but they always end up so application specific that they are no better to the average buyer than before. Yes, comparing computers is a risky business. But without measures, however vague, we are left to compare computers by the color of their cabinets. ----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/ This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided: 1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles. 2. The following notice remains appended to each copy: The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.