Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucrmath!rhyde
From: rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: ASIC-65816 News
Message-ID: <11859@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 91 01:39:14 GMT
References: <471@generic.UUCP>
Organization: University of California, Riverside
Lines: 24

>>>>
Yeah right, you know how much heat even a 16MHz 386 puts out? At 100MHz, it
wouldn't burn your computer, it would burn down your HOUSE!!!!!
<<<<

100/16 is about 6.  So you're going to mistakenly claim the 100mhz 486 puts
out (say) six times as much heat as a 16 Mhz 80386sx.  Does this mean that
a 25Mhz 65816 will put out 25x as much heat as a 1Mhz 6502?

C'mon, we're talking new technologies here.  You shouldn't make up stuff like
this just to gripe about the 80x86 processors.  There are enough reasons to
gripe about them without inventing bogus reasons!

As for your emulation question, II on a Mac ran at about the speed of a
0.5 Mhz 6502 on a Mac Plus.  I haven't run the program in years, but I'd bet
on my Mac II fx it's quite respectible (like a 4-6Mhz 6502).  Taking into
consideration the additional instructions on the '816 (which wouldn't really
slow things down that much), I suspect you could write a 65816 emulator which
performs as fast as a 10Mhz 65816 (including crazy Apple video and I/O
simulation) with no problems on a 100 Mhz 486.  Of course, you'd have to write
the code in assembly language!  SoftPC on my Mac II fx simulates an 8Mhz
80286.  The 80286 is quite a bit more complex and certainly more difficult to
simulate than the 65816 (I know, I've written some of this simulators).  I would
suspect that a good program could do at least as good a job with the 65816.