Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!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: <1991Jun14.004412.26009@neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 14 Jun 91 00:44:12 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> <1991Jun13.003707.19785@neon.Stanford.EDU> <22393@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 86 daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Burst mode helps some, but it's no substitute for 0 wait state memory. Cache Wouldn't this also be true for a 68020 system? I'd be interested to see benchmarked differences between HP 68020 and 68030 systems. >> 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. >They're continuing to push the i860 and i960 into their established niches. >The i860 as a graphics coprocessor and vector machine (it is showing up on >all kinds of high end display boards), the i960 for embedded control, >especially in the military and avionics markets. Yes, but I meant that Intel would use the "expertise" gathered from developing these processors in designing the 586. Up till now, the teams working on these processors have been kept pretty much separate. The articles I've been reading indicate that these people are now working much more closely. >>>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. >Well, no one else does :-) (EE Times was lukewarm on it, Microprocessor Report >pretty unimpressed, since it doesn't really mean much of anything yet). "Yet" is the important word. Sure, it's all vapourware at the moment, but I think the point of announcing it now was to scare Intel. If R4000 machines really come to market in a big way, I'm sure Intel will try be trying very hard to make their 80x86 family competitive to win back that high end [which in a few years time will be the low-end]. >>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. >No, actually, it's Compaq trying to get out from behind Intel and IBM with >something they can control. I don't see why Compaq will be able to control this any better than the 80x86 market, if they're agreeing to all these other firms as ACE members. DEC, for example, could just as easily tell the market where to go [especially as DEC has much more experience in the high end than Compaq]. And who says DEC will do what Compaq wants? [DEC, for example, could make TurboChannel the preferred bus, leaving EISA out in the cold]. I still think Compaq would prefer to stay with the 80x86 family [at least that's the impression I got as to why ACE included the 80x86 as a valid architecture, rather than sticking strictly with the R4000]. >follows in its footsteps. But really, the 68K is alive and kicking, >especially in VME. The 88K is on VME, but hasn't really gone far yet. Take a >look through Computer Design sometime and check out all the '040 based VME >cards out already. I know, I read it quite often. But that doesn't say which one Motorola is actually putting their effort behing. I'd be interested to know the relative size of the 68K and 88K R&D groups, along with their growth over the past 4 years. >do the same things the 68K does. However, there's absolutely no assurance >that a 68K user will necessarily pick up the 88K as a replacement; MIPSs and >SPARCs, to name a few, are out now for both system CPUs, VME stuff, and >embedded control. Current 68K users are unlikely to go the SPARC route, given its poor performance and relatively poor architecture. [You'll note that a lot of 80x86 vendors are now selling SPARC systems - I guess they know how to pick a bad one :-)]. MIPS is definitely Motorola's biggest threat, especially if Motorola doesn't get the 88110 out and shipping soon after the R4000. I think Motorola will make it extremely attractive for current 68K users to switch to switch to the 88K (i.e. in financial measures) - this seems to be the approach taken with NeXT. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Fame, fame, fame... What's it good for? Ab-so-lute-ly nothing