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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!pesnta!amd!intelca!kds From: kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro,net.micro.pc,net.micro.68k Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need 286 "C" benchmark Message-ID: <593@intelca.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-May-85 13:47:10 EDT Article-I.D.: intelca.593 Posted: Wed May 29 13:47:10 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 06:08:54 EDT References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP> <583@intelca.UUCP> <433@oakhill.UUCP> <588@intelca.UUCP> <296@tilt.FUN> Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 31 Xref: watmath net.arch:1270 net.micro:10562 net.micro.pc:4072 net.micro.68k:825 > Defending Intel against the question, "Why should 286 users pay a > performance penalty if their programs require > 64K data?" might > look better than sniping at your competitor just because he has the > intelligence to point out an obvious architectural "feature". > > Ray Chen > princeton!tilt!chenr This wasn't quite the point. Rather, lots of the "usual" Unix utilities run, no problem, with much less than 64K of text AND data, so for the things you normally do, maybe, just maybe, a SLOWER clock speed 286 runs just as fast as the new, whizzy, 68020. For a few large things, then yes, you can have a problem. Another point is that the 286 has memory protection on chip, and regardless of what you think of it, if you are trying to make a multitasking/multiuser system, this has to be a big cost advantage. I have >tried< to use 68K Unix-lookalikes on non-protected systems, and blammo, bad news. Still another point is that when the 386 is available, whenever that is, if it runs things 2-3X the 286 AND runs large programs just as easily and as fast as it runs small programs, then what does this say about relative 68020 performance? (this probably isn't fair, is it?) Makes you wonder about "ugly" architectures, etc. I'd like to think it is pretty good for a chip that has been derided many times here as "an overgrown 4004" or a high-performance vending machine. -- 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.