Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!uhccux!uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu!kiki From: kiki@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jack W. Wine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Atari cpu evolution Message-ID: <12371@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Date: 8 Apr 91 06:03:56 GMT References: <12229@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> <2318@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> Sender: news@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu Organization: University of Hawaii Lines: 83 [previous statements about British PgC cpu series and influence on Mot./Intel] >From: plinio@turing.seas.ucla.edu (Plinio Barbeito) >It would be more fair to call it a monopoly if Motorola's prices were >unreasonable (like intel's). I would contend that their decision to not license their 030/040 and 386/486 architectures to other companies was very short-sighted. If Motorola had allowed their chips to be second sourced, especially with Japanese companies like Toshiba and Hitachi, they would have attained a much larger share of the market. Distributing the development of the cpus would have allowed Motorola and their licensees to debug and produce their designs much faster. Instead, the 040 arrived more than a year overdue and does not meet its performance expectations. As for Intel, from what I read, they seem to be simply unscru- pulous with their licensees and I guess it would have been out of character for them to have an open architecture. [PgC 7610 specs and availability...] >Promising 80 MIPS by Feb. 1992 for $40 in (large volumes, I assume)? >Sounds great, but it is just that -- a promise. Has intel ever made >good on the promise that its i860 would run at 50MHz so that the 150 >max MIPS figure hyped by the press could come to light? Someone posted that there was an article on the PgC chips in the international edition of Byte. It is supposed to be in the March '91 (not '89) issue and perhaps someone from Britain might post more information. >Other questions to be resolved: how efficiently would the processor >emulate a 68000... We wouldn't know all of this until the machine and >emulation software were inplemented. The following information about a similar processor might provide more proof of the viability of the PgC design: Teraplex (Champaign, IL) developed a 32 bit processor with a 128 bit instruction word (PgC 7600 uses 96 bit instr.). The Teraplex cpu does not have microcode or decoding circuits so it uses the the first 64 bits of the instr. word for hardware control, while the second 64 bits are the instruction operands. The instructions are very primitive so that it is capable of mimicking other processors. Actual systems built with this MISC (minimal instruction set computer) execute MS-DOS programs at about 4.5 times the speed of a 33Mhz '386. Although it does not have a FPU, the Teraplex 32 bit CMOS design is about as fast as a MIPS R3000 with an FPU. Other systems based on the MISC are running MIPS and SPARC programs and the company is also investigating running Motorola 68000 code. Teraplex hopes to have commercial workstations and desktop computers based on the chip, by the fourth quarter of 1991. Refer Byte, Nov. '90, pgs. 19-20. >Also, a lot of fast cpus will be introduced in this year of 1991, so >that 80 MIPS (whatever that means in real terms of performance) may >not seem as fast by comparison in one year. And 1993? Well, in >computer years, that's ages hence. By then, the 68050 may be a more >familiar sight... It's hard to make predictions, but it seems certain that one of the dominant OS running on the new processors will be UNIX and the SPARC RISC was designed to run it optimally. Also, Sun's decision to have an open architecture is resulting in a flood of systems based on the SPARC chip set. A partial list of companies introducing SPARC systems are Northgate, Chicony Electronics, CompuAdd, Hyundai, Tatung, DTK Computer, Opus, RDI/TriGem, DCM Data, Mars, Sampo, Solbourne, Meiko World, ICL, Solarix, Toshiba, Twinhead, etc... It would appear that the SPARC-UNIX combo will mirror what happened with the MS DOS-INTEL systems; you will be able to get a very powerful system, very cheap. Atari will have a hard delivering an '040 system that will be competitive with the SPARC-based systems. If the specs for the PgC and Teraplex chips hold true, then it would seem to me that Atari could have an amazing machine that would be capable of running programs faster than the target system! >From: Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com >Golly.. Lenonard Tramiel has already stated that Atari will never use >the 68040 (I think it was at the Glendale AtariFest last year..?), so >why worry about it..? I was reading some of the old Znet and STreports on Freenet (thanks to the people who upload them) and Alwin Stumpf of Atari Germany supposedly said in an interview that they would use the 68040 if its price were reasonable. Is Leonard Tramiel head of R&D? I remember reading an article about a guy name Shiraz Shivji. Is he still around at Atari? Jack