Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.transputer > #69
| From | "Mike B." <michael_bruestle@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.transputer |
| Subject | Re: IMSB427-17 vs. IMS B428-12 |
| Date | 2012-04-22 01:44 -0700 |
| Organization | http://groups.google.com |
| Message-ID | <8211772.2556.1335084288566.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbq19> (permalink) |
| References | <21413161.598.1335083218824.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbki8> |
Sorry for the incomplete post - I know - a web browser ist not a wise editor! I've measured the overall runtime, including the boot time. B427 B428 ratio icc 2.492 2.440 1.02 ilink 11.405 10.766 1.06 icollect 2.214 2.152 1.03 iserver 8.961 9.310 0.96 Outcome: For me the B427 is the winner. The B428 is slightly faster in memory intensive tests but the fourfold memory size of the B427 is always smashing. Nevertheless - memory references are far away from imperceptible, even in 1992. -Mike
Back to comp.sys.transputer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
IMSB427-17 vs. IMS B428-12 "Mike B." <michael_bruestle@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 01:26 -0700 Re: IMSB427-17 vs. IMS B428-12 "Mike B." <michael_bruestle@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 01:44 -0700
csiph-web