Talk:Nord-100

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Is the numbers for Whetstone MWIPS correct for the ND-100 / ND-110 comparision? The later improved processor have a lower rating and it seems odd. A citation needed is in place. ScandinavianRockguy (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ND100/110 comparison[edit]

Inserted fact tags in one ND100/110 column each. Citation needed for the figures, in particular MWIPS. Minimum number of ucycles per instruction and ucycle time point to a factor 4.5 improvement of performance (namely (150ns/100ns) * (3cycles/1cycle)) in case the ucycles/instruction ratio would be typical. So the 110 should be up to a factor 4.5 faster than the 100. Now MWIPS seems to be a float benchmark, so how did they compare those - FP emulation by ucode in the 110 case vs hard FP for the 100? And is the MWIPS figure really representative of performance for the typical application/system load? The calculation of these figures needs to be cited and explained, just accepting this w.o. the benchmark setup and conditions makes it pointless. If this is to be a performance comparison it needs more work, otherwise MWIPS figures to be deleted as meaningless. The whole article needs citations. 70.137.148.19 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]