Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpcvca!charles
From: charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Benchmarks (was: Re: A2620)
Message-ID: <5660045@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM>
Date: 21 Jun 89 20:17:53 GMT
References: <780@corpane.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon
Lines: 27

> In article <12201@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes:
>> And since [the 8086] was (by at least a year, and I believe two) the
>> only 16-bit >processor in town, except for TI's weird chip, it didn't
>> seem all that bad >then.

> Sorry, Mike, but National Semiconductor had a 16-bit chip way before the
> 8086 hit town.  It was called the PACE and it was a multi-chip 16-bit
> big brother to their SC/MP (aka SCAMP) 8-bit chip.  
> 	andy 	bandy@well.sf.ca.us

Forgive me for contributing to this drift, but I can't ignore errors
this large (especially in what is supposed to be a correction).

The IMP was the first commercial 16 bit microprocessor.  It was not
particularly related to the SC/MP, except that both were designed and
made by National Semiconductor.  The PACE was a ONE CHIP version of
the IMP.  All of these products were on the market before the 8086 was
even announced.

The prime limitation on the success of the PACE was probably its slow
speed.  It was implemented in enhancement-mode PMOS and was at the
time a rather large chip.
--
	Charles Brown	charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com
			or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!"
	Not representing my employer.
	"The guy sure looks like plant food to me." Little Shop of Horrors