Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!stpeter!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis@stpeter.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga 3000
Message-ID: <132973@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 15 Mar 90 17:33:27 GMT
References: <13479@baldrick.udel.EDU> <9884@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <6857@cps3xx.UUCP> <3944@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <6360@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <3951@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <6398@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <32389@auc.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 19

In article <32389@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes:
>From what I remember of the article, the 68040 is faster than a SPARC of the
>SAME clock rate (25 MHz).

A short clarification, a point of confusion is often that people 
don't specify *which* SPARC chip they are comparing to. SPARC is an 
architecture like 68K is an architecture. 68040 is the name Motorola
has given to their latest implementation of the 68K architecture. Probably
the "fastest" implementation of the SPARC architecture is currently
available from Cypress. So is the 68040 faster than the Cypress-SPARC ? 
I don't know and neither does BYTE. I agree with Rick, wait till some
uninterested third party runs the SPECmark package on two _systems_
to see which one is the current king in the MIPs wars. Maybe Fred Fish
can tell us how the 68040 compares to the 88000. 

--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
"If it didn't have bones in it, it wouldn't be crunchy now would it?!"