Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Gadgets by Small - Possible new '030 add-on board!
Message-ID: <2307@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 89 07:03:19 GMT
References: <23970@cup.portal.com> <2278@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <46dba878.14a1f@force.UUCP> <1989Nov16.180311.23182@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <3795@netmbx.UUCP>
Sender: news@hudson.acc.virginia.edu
Reply-To: gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 30

In article <3795@netmbx.UUCP> hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) writes:

>I exspect the Gadgets board to help a lot with Spectre and do almost
>nothing for TOS.

Hm. I thought the FaST Tech board was a 16mhz 68000 with a
write-through 32k cache. So if you do lots of reading in a row, you
get a big win. Now if you essentially mounted a 16mhz 68030 with a 16
bit data path onto the same board, and somehow get around the Fline
problem, then you'd have something that would speed things up more
than the Turbo16. Right? It wouldn't be as good as a 32-bit data path
with no speed decrease on writes, but still better than a 68000 at
16mhz.

Of course, I don't know if the '030 can handle different bus widths.
My Moto books aren't that recent.

The way that it wins over the PAK68 is that Jim Allen has partially
decoupled the processor speed from the video speed.

> The ST is a closed machine; a compatible, faster
>redesign is pretty exspensive.

But the TT *is* a compatible redesign with 32-bit everything, right?
It will be interesting to compare the TT to other similar '030 boxes,
when/if it arrives.

------
Greg Lindahl
gl8f@virginia.edu                                  Astrophysicists for Choice.