Hi Ken:

In essence, you are asking if I believe meaningful comparison is possible.
I sure do.

I also believe that it's possible to properly compare apples and oranges--
but only by asking the RIGHT question!   'Which is better for your health?'
is not a meaningful question.   'Which is better if one has scurvey?' is
measurable and thus answerable.

Similarly, 'Which is the more powerful CPU?' should be sharpened by: Power
to do WHAT?  CPU A and B may be virtually equal as word processors, while A
could blow the socks off B while searching for prime numbers.   A question
about "raw computing power" is usually a raw, unripened question.

Similarly, "true test of performance" is an unfinished premise.   It
requires the "performing what" to be complete.    Even that requires
judgment.   Ten percent better performance at "calculating spreadsheets" is
a silly reason to buy a machine if it only 'calculates' a few minutes a
day-- better to buy based upon color and cute buttons.  Yet, that same
superiority in a worker-bee machine can be worth baskets o' bucks.

I would **never** exclude the comparison of different classes of machines--
those are *exactly* the kinds of comparisons we MUST make to choose hardware
for a particular job.

My invocation of benchmark caveats was more cautionary than exclusionary.
Use them with full awareness of what we really looking at in the numbers.
Assume nothing.

I had a blast going through the benchmark sites before deciding upon
hardware.  Looked at everything from 66MHz on up.  In the end,  I chose a
path which entails CPUs and motherboard which are not quite the most
efficient or the best immediate value per MFLOP-- but they have a 100%+
performance upgrade path and attractive motherboard features.

Matt

>
>Matt Swarm wrote:
>
>> When we shift the focus from the work a particular machine will do to
>> TESTING CPUs and machines in general, Ken, it seems to me than NM's
>> criticism becomes more applicable.   For example, if an x86 compiler used
on
>> POV source is inferior to an Alpha compiler, the Alpha might look 50%
faster
>> for certain POV programs.  Clearly, we are not just testing hardware.
>>
>> Matt
>
>  I won't argue your point... BUT... well ok. Then the only true test
>of your performance would be when it is compared to a similar system
>architecture and platform running at a specific speed. Any other
>comparison would simply imply that your machine is different than
>someone else's and your results would therefore be misleading. It
>that what you are implying ?
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>See my 700+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
>http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message