1. Answered you question about where the figures were sourced from. The reason I put both SPEC *marks* in there is because that is as good as it gets for something as ancient as a 603 - people are not running 2000 against such old kit in lab conditions anymore. That is the point. Why did you think I kept what the source marks were in the post? I had assumed someone would ask the intelligent question "how do you compare them" but then if they are intelligent enough to ask that question they are intelligent enough to go find out precisely what they said above.
2. Ballpark figures are all that is required. In fact if you followed my advice and went to the spec site you would see exactly what the kit was. ;-)
The point being, dear Piru, that you cannot compare apples with apple strudel! The point being what exactly I think you were about to start berating me for! :-)
Now we could turn this into a navel gazing exercise but you know and I know that benchmarks are useless for anything other than ball park estimates and USENET rows with Steve G.
Next time I wont keep the unstated sarcasm out of my posts. Maybe then you will get what I was going on about with the apples ( 95 ) and oranges ( 2000 ) comparison and the "as good as it gets".
