Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!well!theobaby
From: theobaby@well.UUCP (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: 68030 Accelerators, Info Wanted
Message-ID: <14405@well.UUCP>
Date: 2 Nov 89 03:39:53 GMT
References: <14325@well.UUCP> <8357@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: theobaby@well.UUCP (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 8

Dave, true - no 030 comparisons published yet....i mistakenly pointed to data
from 020  board performance comparisons previously published, which did in fact
show the Ronin board to be somewhat superior in performance. mea culpa.
   I do not see that address translation will incur any performance penalty
worth mentioning. The 030 supports 2 clk cycle accesses to physical address
space, while addresses are translated in parallel with D and I cache accesses,
if they are in the ATC. Only in the most demanding CPU core intensive situations will the MMU incur a performance overhead, and even then, i believe it would be minimal (time for me to RTFM!)
>>>>Pummel bandwidth wasting signatures!! Paul Theodoropoulos, theobaby@Well<<<