Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rayssd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!rayssd!gmp
From: gmp@rayssd.UUCP (Gregory M. Paris)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: Harmonic Benchmark - 8086 vs Mac
Message-ID: <780@rayssd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 17:34:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: rayssd.780
Posted: Fri Jun  7 17:34:31 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 05:46:20 EDT
References: <1030032@acf4.UUCP> <777@rayssd.UUCP> <211@uwvax.UUCP>
Organization: Raytheon Co., Portsmouth RI
Lines: 24

> From: 		-Harry Plantinga
>
> People seem to like to say "The effective 68000 clock rate is only x MHz"
> where the x is replaced by some number from 3 to 7 depending on the
> person's opinion of the mac.
> 
> According to Byte mag, it's around 6 MHz, more if you are doing
> graphics or some other type of program which spends lots of time in
> rom.
> 

My figure of 4 MHz was based entirely on the article I was following-up to.
(I think that poster was correct about the 8 MHz clock though; I don't
think that Apple is using the 10 MHz or 12 MHz 68000 chips.)  From a hardware
standpoint, the effective clock rate *IS* 4 MHz.  That says virtually nothing
about the performance of the MAC relative to any other computer.  The intent
of my article was to correct the poster's erroneous assumption about the
writers of the compiler he was using.
-- 

++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
||  Gregory M. Paris                                                        ||
||                    ...!{allegra,linus,raybed2,ccice5,brunix}!rayssd!gmp  ||
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++