Greetings -

> From: Brian D Chase <bdc@world.std.com>
> For comparison, my modest if not outright obsolete P75 runs the same
> benchmark at 142857, so it's about 60 times faster.  A 386DX/40 was right

	That strikes me as a bit too high/optimistic, sounds more like a 
	P54C/90 to me.

> factor of 60 :-)  Even a 386DX/16 would likely fair well against a
> MicroVAX II with the dhrystone benchmark. But I've a feeling that floating

	the 386DX blows the uVax-II out of the water.

> point ops would be a strong point for the MicroVAX II, and my gut also
> tells me that it will handle heavy process loads better. 
 
	Ummm, not really.  Both are hobbled by 'crippled' bus structures - the
	uVax-II by the multiplexed Qbus and the 386 by the ISA bus (which
	BTW is faster than the Qbus ;)).

	The "PC" (386) would be able to use more current SCSI devices (but the
	thought of a Cheetah drive hooked up to a 386 wobbles the mind ;-)) 
	whereas the uVax-II could not for the most part.

	If you stuffed a 80387 chip into the 386 system you were far ahead
	of the uVax-II in FP.  The uVax-II can't even do BCD math faster than
	a 386 because DEC left out the decimal math instruction set.  Sigh.

	For 'raw' cpu power a 386DX/33 is equal to a (get this) a VAX-8650 
	(what we used to call "big iron").  It was a real suprise/awakening
	years ago when I benched a 386/33 and it came out faster than a 8650.
	Now for sure a 8650 could move a *LOT* more I/O over multiple busses, 
	but CPU wise (and if YOU're the only user) the 386 is faster than any 
	VAX up thru the 8650.

	Steven Schultz
	sms@wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com