IBM 6000 vs HP 9000 series 700

[Dave Weintraub]

In article <1991Jun25.160925.53455 at eagle.wesleyan.edu>, hoberoi at eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
|> Hi,
|> 	here goes:
|> 	any comparisons of RS6000 530/540 etc with the HP Apollo 9000 series
|> 	700 machines ?
|>                                                                         
|> 	HP claims better SPECmarks for all the comparable models
|> 	
|>         SPEC    IBM 320		HP 720 		IBM 530  	HP 730
|> 	mark    24.6    	55.5            32             	72.2
|> 	int     16.3            39.0            20.4           	51.0
|> 	fp	32.4            70.2		43.4		91.0
|> 
|> 
|> 	I would be interested in the performance AIX vs HP-UX. How better/worse
|> 	is the OS.
|> 
|> 	graphics- IBM offers the SGI Personal Iris board for the 500 series 
|> 	machines. HP has the T1/T2 based boards. How do the two compare ?
|> 
|> thanks
|> Himanshu hoberoi at beaver.wesleyan.edu
|> 	
No answer, but a comment:

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.

The HP videotape I saw cited a SAS developer compairing SAS on the
HP versus SAS on a 3090-600E.  Only problem is,
SAS/C (in which SAS is now written) does not,
to the best of my knowledge, take advantage of the IBM vector facility,
multitasking, or QSAM chaining; the comparison was a little skewed.
I would also use the caveats suggested by Dvorak, in terms of
scalability of the comparisons.

Mind you, I repeat: the 720 is a *hot* machine!  And the PC simulator
beats pcsim by miles.