Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang.c,net.micro,net.micro.pc,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: 286 = 68020?
Message-ID: <444@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 02:59:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: oakhill.444
Posted: Wed Jun  5 02:59:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 05:48:38 EDT
References: <426@oakhill.UUCP> <8745@microsoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.arch:1320 net.lang.c:5348 net.micro:10675 net.micro.pc:4144 net.micro.68k:869

In article <1494@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>       ...                          What he does say is for programs
>that require less than 64K of data, a 286 competes nicely with a 68020.
>

Perhaps the west coast didn't recieve Dan Tso's Unix benchmarks?  It seems
both the 286/310 and IBM PC/AT lost almost all 10 of them against a
10 Megahertz MC68010.  [Thats MC68010 - not MC68020.]

>
>>In article <588@intelca.UUCP> kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) writes:
>>>maybe Dave realizes that for programs that require less than 64K of data
>>>that a 12MHz 286 actually keeps pace with the 16.67 MHz 68020.

Hummm.  Looks like Ken never saw them either.  Should they be reposted?

Dave Trissel     {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
Motorola Semiconductor Inc.