

	I think this kind of comparison is pretty useless in general.  The
processor is only good when a good computer is designed around it adn the
computer is used in its designed purpose.  Comparing processor speed is
pretty dumb because all you have to do is just increase the clock speed
to increase speed among other things.

	I mean how can you say a 040 is faster than a 486 without 
giving is operational conditions?  Can you say the same when 
you are running a program that uses a lot of transidental functions.
Knowing that 040 does not have transidental functions building in to 
its FPU and 486 does, can you say that 040 is still faster?

	Anyway, I hope people do not decided upon wether a computers
is good or not solely on its processor.  Or how fast a processor is
based on its name, because one can alway do a certain things to a
processor to speed it up.  

	But if we restrict our arguements to, for example, pure
processor architectural issues.  Or how one processor will work
well and another will not based on its design, then we can get
somewhere with our discussions.  

- Chung Yang