IBM 6000 vs HP 9000 series 700

[Dave Sill]

In article <1991Jun25.214124.29573 at aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, dave at visual1.jhuapl.edu (Dave Weintraub) writes:
>
>Beware of HP's claims.  Their machine is *hot*, but they tend
>to be into hyperboil (?sp).  See Dvorak's column in PC Magazine,
>where he reports HP's claims of a 720 vs a Cray, and interprets these
>with a wise ton of salt.

It's clear from this column# that Dvorak doesn't know his asymptote
from a hole-in-the-graph when it comes to benchmarks.  He presents
*no* first hand data to back up his claims, sheds no light on what the
referenced benchmark, AN-SYS something-or-other, measures, and then
proceeds to claim it has no basis or relevance.  He uses arguments
like "this benchmark indicates that the HP is half as fast as a Cray,
and *I* know that isn't the case, so this result is bogus."  What a
crock.  

He says how he "was told" that the Cray's time on the test was
nearly all system overhead, and that if the test were lengthened 100
times, its time might not increase whereas the HP's time would likely
be 100 times greater.  What garbage.

He concludes with a comment from an unnamed CISC weenie that RISC
machines are only marginally faster than equivalent CISC machines, as
if neither of these guys (Dvorak nor his source) had a stake in CISC.
Sheesh.

I suggest Dvorak's readers interpret his column with a carload of
salt.  Or better yet, skip it favor of a column with some meat in it.

Can anyone shed any more light on this AN-SYS benchmark and what it
measures?

# I received a copy of a Dvorak article on this topic electronically.
I'm assuming it's substantially the same as the one referenced above.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5 at ornl.gov)	  Tug on anything in nature and you will find
Martin Marietta Energy Systems    it connected to everything else.
Workstation Support                                             --John Muir