Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dg!dg-rtp.dg.com!mpogue
From: mpogue@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mike Pogue)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: Crystal Balls
Message-ID: <1108@dg.dg.com>
Date: 2 Nov 90 15:22:10 GMT
References: <1990Oct14.003906.26373@wolves.uucp> <1536@ftc.framentec.fr> <1990Oct19.120218.9450@canterbury.ac.nz> <656404917.9119@proa.sv.dg.com> <1095@dg.dg.com> <42589@mips.mips.COM> <10947@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <42609@mips.mips.COM>
Sender: root@dg.dg.com
Reply-To: mpogue@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mike Pogue)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 23



John Mashey writes:

>  re: 85MHz R6000: huh?  (The system product was originally announced at
>  67.5MHz, and that was close, if a little optimistic.l)
>  re: R4000: there is, of course, no announced product called this...


  Let's not mix SYSTEM announcements with CHIP announcements, eh?   Lindsay's
point was that the R6000 chip's original performance goal was >85Mhz clock,
when in fact, the chip (as it finally ended up) works at a clock speed about
25% lower.

  John, would you care to comment on the original (announced, leaked, internal,
etc.) performance goals for the R6000?

--
Mike Pogue
Data General Corp.
Westboro, MA.

Speaking for myself, not my company....