How fast is a Sparc 10 compared to a Intel x86 processor?

My sparc:
Dual processor
128 mb ram
1 gb harddrive






/Goldstar

Goldstar <goldstar@goldstar.com> wrote:
>How fast is a Sparc 10 compared to a Intel x86 processor?

>My sparc:
>Dual processor
>128 mb ram
>1 gb harddrive


Slow! I have a pair of Sparc 20s, one loaded with RAM and dual CPUs and
they are pooches, computationally speaking. But hey, they were given to
me for $0 (zero dollars) so I've had fun with them. It was kind of a
pain taking the shrinkwrap off the Solaris 8 boxes... Now, I might pay
as much as a dollar for a late model VAX of the speedier variety. What
can I say? I'm cheap!

Regards,
Mark "if it isn't optimized assembly language, it's slow code" Gibson

--
"When the need arises, any tool or object closest to you becomes a hammer."
-- found on www.dsm.org

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."
-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:38:19 +0300, Mark Gibson wrote:

> Slow! I have a pair of Sparc 20s, one loaded with RAM and dual CPUs and
> they are pooches, computationally speaking. But hey, they were given to
> me for $0 (zero dollars) so I've had fun with them. It was kind of a
> pain taking the shrinkwrap off the Solaris 8 boxes... Now, I might pay
> as much as a dollar for a late model VAX of the speedier variety. What
> can I say? I'm cheap!
>
> Regards,
> Mark "if it isn't optimized assembly language, it's slow code" Gibson
>

That doesn't say much to me... a 1 Ghz PC can be slow... a 486 can
also be slow...

In the later case is sure it's slow...



I paid less than 100$ / euros for it including a 17" colorscreen and a
external hd-case. Was it worth it?

/Goldstar

On Sunday 12 October 2003 2:55 am in comp.sys.sun.hardware Goldstar wrote:

> How fast is a Sparc 10 compared to a Intel x86 processor?
>
> My sparc:
> Dual processor
> 128 mb ram
> 1 gb harddrive

It depends what you want to do with it.

There is no simple comparison because the architectures are
different. Sun boxen tend to be better on total throughput but
a tab slow on pure CPU stuff.

As a very rough guide I would put it in the same class as a
dual pentium pro. IOW good for a 10 year old machine.

--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Goldstar <goldstar@goldstar.com> wrote:
> How fast is a Sparc 10 compared to a Intel x86 processor?

Rather than answer that, how about I just say that the SS10 was first
released in 1992, and discontinued in 1994.

ie, it's about as fast as you'd expect a 10 year old computer to be.

Scott.

Chris Newport <me@see-my-sig.invalid> wrote:
>On Sunday 12 October 2003 2:55 am in comp.sys.sun.hardware Goldstar wrote:

>> How fast is a Sparc 10 compared to a Intel x86 processor?
>>
>> My sparc:
>> Dual processor
>> 128 mb ram
>> 1 gb harddrive

>It depends what you want to do with it.

>There is no simple comparison because the architectures are
>different. Sun boxen tend to be better on total throughput but
>a tab slow on pure CPU stuff.

>As a very rough guide I would put it in the same class as a
>dual pentium pro. IOW good for a 10 year old machine.

I concur, except I'd say a Sparc 10 is closer in performance to
vaery fast 486 or a rather slow original Pentium. If you are
into computer architechture, the Sparc design is sorta neat,
if not extraordinary in any way.

Although RISC has rewards, I'm a CISC guy by nature -- .asm
programming is easier that way. Gimme a fast box with 64 general
purpose 128-bit registers and a sh*tload of RAM plus speedy buses
and I'll be happy, for at least a year. Then I'll want something
faster!

Regards,
Mark "disk storage? toss it into RAM! it's faster!" Gibson

--
"When the need arises, any tool or object closest to you becomes a hammer."
-- found on www.dsm.org

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."
-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

Goldstar wrote:

|> |> I paid less than 100$ / euros for it including a 17" colorscreen and a
|> external hd-case. Was it worth it?

Reasonably.

Please get a real name.

--

"I'm a doctor, not a mechanic." Dr Leonard McCoy <mccoy@ncc1701.starfleet.fed>
"I'm a mechanic, not a doctor." Volker Borchert <v_borchert@despammed.com>

In article <3f88964f@utbdemo2.studo.mh.se>,
Goldstar <goldstar@goldstar.com> wrote:

>
> That doesn't say much to me... a 1 Ghz PC can be slow... a 486 can
> also be slow...
>
> In the later case is sure it's slow...
>
CPU speed-wise, it is dog slow. Its best video card would never play
even Warcraft. You are better off with a 3GHz Pentium.
>
>
> I paid less than 100$ / euros for it including a 17" colorscreen and a
> external hd-case. Was it worth it?
>
From what I can infer that you want to do with it, not at all. You
could give it to me though.

--
Mauricio raubvogel-yahoo-com
(if you need to email me, use this address =)

Goldstar wrote:

> How fast is a Sparc 10 compared to a Intel x86 processor?
>
> My sparc:
> Dual processor
> 128 mb ram
> 1 gb harddrive
>

As it can have several different SuperSparc CPU's its hard to tell.
if you have a dual 75 Mhz machine , it would equal a dual 133-166 Mhz
Pentium 1 in compute power.

Very Generally speaking , the SPARC CPUs have been
1.5 times faster than the concurrently available Intel Cpu
measured at the same frequency , measuring integer performance.
And 2 times faster measuring floating point performance.

For most of the 1990:s the megahertz race was even making the SPARC
platform far superior to the Intel architecture.

Year SPARC CHIP Intel Chip.

1990 ROSS 33 MHZ Intel 486 33 Mhz
1993 TI Supersparc 60 MHZ Pentium 1 60 Mhz
1995 TI UltraSparc 1 140 Mhz pentium 1 133 Mhz
1997 TI Ultrasparc II 250 Mhz Pentium II 266 Mhz
1999 TI Ultrasparc II 400 Mhz Pentium III 500 Mhz

//Lars

Goldstar escribió:
> How fast is a Sparc 10 compared to a Intel x86 processor?
>
> My sparc:
> Dual processor
> 128 mb ram
> 1 gb harddrive
>
>
>
>
>
>
> /Goldstar

That depends on what CPUs you have in your system. As a comparison, my SPARCstation 20 equipped with a single 75 MHz SuperSPARC performs more or less like my Pentium 120 MHz. I'd say it's a little slower in integer performance but a little faster in floating point. The overall performance is better, though, as I can do more things at the same time (like doing several large compilations) without the system slowing to a crawl as it would do on the Pentium (I've tested it). On the other hand, any PCI graphics adapter in the x86 world seems to be a LOT faster than my SX.

Now, wouldn't even try to compare it to my AMD XP 2000. It would be pointless.

--
To reach me by email: trasform my account name like IBM -> HAL.