Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:445 comp.sys.ibm.pc:46650
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ssingh
From: ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu ($anjay "lock-on" $ingh - Indy Studies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Re: How is a 68000 as fast as an 80386??
Message-ID: <1503@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 90 01:02:13 GMT
References: <505@bilver.UUCP> <3666@plains.UUCP> <909@tijc02.UUCP> <4477@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 25

In article <4477@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes:
>
>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.
>
Bravo!! At this point, who cares anymore what processor is better? They
were designed with different motivations. To paraphrase what a worker at
Intel said, we put a stake in the ground with the 8086; we can only build
on it. Look to the 960 for a much cleaner instruction set (the original
question was why 386 assembler is SO wierd.) BTW, I'm probably behind
the times, but when the 486 first came out, it was informally 25 Mhz and
15 VAX MIPS. Motorola waited and out comes a 68040 at 25 Mhz and 20 VAX
MIPS. ALR now has a 33 Mhz 486 out now; net throughput increase: 25%;
projected VAX MIPS (my guess, anyway): 20.

I like variety: My next machine will be based on a 680x0.

 
-- 
"No one had the guts... until now..."  
|-$anjay "lock [+] on" $ingh	ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu	N.A.R.C. ]I[-|
"No his mind is not for rent, to any God or government."-Rush, Moving Pictures
!being!mind!self!cogsci!AI!think!nerve!parallel!cybernetix!chaos!fractal!info!