Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/13/84; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!intelca!kds
From: kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker)
Newsgroups: net.micro.16k,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Re: Corrigenda
Message-ID: <517@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 20:59:18 EST
Article-I.D.: intelca.517
Posted: Tue Feb 26 20:59:18 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 20:43:00 EST
References: <983@watdcsu.UUCP> <2385@nsc.UUCP> <730@amdcad.UUCP> <2393@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.micro.16k:230 net.micro.68k:615

> In article <730@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
> >But 24 bits of address is not a huge thing, which is what the 32032 has.
> >24 bits is only 16 Mb or 4 4 Mb memory cards.
> 
> Only 4 4Mb cards? Sigh-- Just think of the vast numbers of Vaxes running 16
> megabytes right now. Just thihk of the size of the 4 Mb cards in your 16Mb
> Vax Last I looked, 16Mb was a LOT of memory, and from a cost/manufacturing

oh well, only 16MBytes?  Another point is that since the address qualification
is done outside the chip, that corresponds to a 16MByte virtual space, also,
regardless of the amount of physical memory you have.  However, saying that
the 32032 isn't a "true" 32-bit processor by virtue of its 24 of
physical address pins is perhaps pressing it a bit.
-- 
It looks so easy, but looks sometimes deceive...

Ken Shoemaker, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,omovax}!intelca!kds
	
---the above views are personal.  They may not represent those of Intel.