Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: The 68050 - end of the 680x0? (was Re: The Amiga's Future) Message-ID: <1991Jun13.003707.19785@neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 13 Jun 91 00:37:07 GMT References: <5068@orbit.cts.com> <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> < <1308@cbmger.UUCP><28@ryptyde.UUCP>> <01dH!cmr@cs.psu.edu> <1991Jun10.072945.8821@neon.Stanford.EDU> <22365@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 61 daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Jun10.072945.8821@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >If you're building full speed systems, a 68030 is _better_ than twice as fast >at the same clock speed as the equivalent 68020/68851 combination. If you >simply drop a 68030 into a 68020 system, the increase is more like 15%-20% >(the Mac II vs. IIx|IIcx is the only pure example of this I know of; the >IIci and IIfx, A2630, and all the HP 68030 systems are designed as 68030 >systems). I've never seen twice the performance in CPU intensive applications. Just as an example, the Speedometer benchmark on an original Mac II clocks the CPU as 3.49, and my IIci as 6.71. Adjusting for clock speed, that's only a 25% improvement. >> Why do I see this as the beginning of the end? Well, by all accounts, >>Intel's 80586 will be as revolutionary a chip from the 486 as the 386 >>was from the 286. >Who's accounts. EE Times, InfoWorld, PC Week for example. [Not exactly paragons of journalistic integrity, but they're more often right than wrong]. >>Reports of an i860 on board, superscalar processing etc seem to dominate any >>discussion of the 586. Well, also because of the reports that Intel is consolidating behind the 80x86 family, and trying to bundle their two other CPU development teams [the 860 (high-speed floating-point), and the 960 (superscalar RISC)] in behind the 80x86 team. >> If Motorola is just planning an evolutionary upgrade for the 050, I >>can't see how this is going to compete head-to-head with the 586. >Since you really don't know what either chip is going to do, I suggest it's >far too early to start worrying about things. We have some hints from Motorola (i.e. the "evolutionary" upgrade). >Also, keep in mind that Intel >has much less to lose by wimping out on the '586 than Motorola does on the >'050. This depends on whether you consider the ACE consortium to be a serious force. In fact, if you recall, one of the main thrusts of ACE is to allow Compaq to force Intel to increase the speed of the 80x86 family, or else risk losing the high-end market to the R4000. >Considering the number of processors Motorola sells to non-desktop computer >users, like VME and other industrial applications, the Apple/NeXT/Amiga use >of high end 680x0s, while not trivial, is the minority. Even here though, the 88K is getting the push ahead of the 68K. Take yesterday's Ford/Motorola announcement, for example. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Apes evolved from creationists" - seen on a bumper sticker.