Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:421 comp.sys.ibm.pc:46541
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!mephisto!rutgers!uwvax!daffy!cat9.cs.wisc.edu!schaut
From: schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Re: How is a 68000 as fast as an 80386??
Message-ID: <4477@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 90 20:35:04 GMT
References: <505@bilver.UUCP> <3666@plains.UUCP> <909@tijc02.UUCP>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 22

In article <909@tijc02.UUCP> rdo031@tijc02.UUCP (Rick Odle           ) writes:
| The only fair test here is to do the test with large model.  While it
| is true that the 80x86 processors will let you execute code in a small
| model architecture,  this is only applicable to fairly small applications
| ( I know this is relatively speaking, and that 10 years ago 64k of code
| was a fairly large application).  The 680x0 family architecture ALWAYS
| fetches long word addresses (32 bits), so the most fair comparision
| is the x86 large model.

An 80386 running DOS is nothing more than a fast 8086 (that's what "real"
mode is).  A fast 68000 matches fairly closely to a fast 8086 in most
operations.

If you want to compare the 80386 with the 68030, then the only truely
fair thing to do is run the 80386 in protected mode.  Even _then_ you're
comparing apples and oranges, and we should all know by now that apples
are better in pies while oranges are better for juice.

--
Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu)

"I'm a theory geek; we use Turing machines!"--Gary Lewandowski