Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site amdcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!amdcad!phil From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k Subject: Re: 68020 benchmarks?? (disbelieve Intel) Message-ID: <1411@amdcad.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-May-85 01:41:26 EDT Article-I.D.: amdcad.1411 Posted: Wed May 22 01:41:26 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 03:04:22 EDT References: <155@soph.UUCP> Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California Lines: 28 In article <155@soph.UUCP> dave@soph.UUCP (Dave Brownell) writes: >Disclaimer: this was NOT an overall benchmark, etc., so no flames please. >No wait states except on the 68000, so far as I know. Yes, this gives >the 80286 an advantage since it then has the fastest memory system. (?) Gosh, how could a 6 MHz 80286 do as good as a 12 MHz 68010? Well, the 68000 system designers must have been trying to make the 68000 look bad so they designed wait states into the memory. It's not possible that Intel designed a more efficient memory interface, of course. Everyone knows Intel doesn't know how to design anything. The 80286 does *not* need faster memory devices than the 68000. What the 80286 does do is use the (same cost) memory devices more efficiently than the 68000. It's called pipelining and is a well known technique among computer professionals. It's only unfair in the same sense that being smarter is unfair. You wouldn't give more credit to someone who starts a fire by rubbing two sticks together than someone who uses a match just because he works harder, would you? -- What do you do the day after a peak experience? Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA