Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm
From: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael)
Newsgroups: net.micro.6809,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: 68xxx v.s. 80xxx    :-)
Message-ID: <395@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 11:23:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.395
Posted: Tue Oct  8 11:23:35 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 06:55:40 EDT
References: <370@wlbr.UUCP> <106@intelca.UUCP>
Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex)
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 52
Xref: linus net.micro.6809:527 net.micro.68k:1161
Summary: 

In article <106@intelca.UUCP> clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) writes:
>> Ever wonder why Motorola's microprocessors (6800, 6809, 680x0) seem to
>> never get as much hype and acceptance as Intel's? Psssst! .. here's why.
>> 
>> Intel puts a divide-by-N counter for the main clock on their micro chips.
>> Not for marketing reasons, you understand. But in hindsight, it's clever.
>> Motorola doesn't. Hence, the idiots writing for the media belittle the
>> 680x's for being far slower than the 80x's.
>> 
>> HEY MOTOROLA! The path to riches is obvious! Put a divider in the "68020A"
>> so that the outside clock frequency will be 500MHz! Or make it a hybrid
>> with a 100GHz clock!
>> 
>> I can imagine INFOWORLD headlines now! 
>
>Maybe Steve's entire article needs an :-) around it.  
>
>Otherwise (FlameOn)
>When Intel quotes a microprocessor clock speed it uses the internal divide-
>by-two clock  not the external crystal.   Thus, you use a 12 MHZ crystal in
>your PC-AT with a 6MHZ 80286, unless of course you've upgraded it to use
>a 18MHz crystal.  

    I don't know what an official Intel quotation is, but the Intel salesmen
    in our area usually quote the crystal frequency.

>At the risk of reopening the "Architecture Wars", Intel 
>could quote the crystal speed and have the same speed bus (4 clocks)
>as an 68010, or an 32032 and a faster clocks speed 25Mhz for a 12.5Mhz 286.   
>I have found that most of uninformed media concentrates on clock speed 
>therefore a 10Mhz 68000 should be faster than a 6Mhz 286 because 10 > 6.

     And, in our benchmarks, the 10 MHz 68000 WAS faster than the 6MHz 286.

>Needless to say this line of reasoning is falicious.  If say my Vette 
>runs at 4000RPM, and you say that your Mazada RX-7 runs at 5500RPM, I 
>can not say which car runs faster, unless I know what gears the cars
>are in and what the gearing ratio is.    The auto industry has solved
>this problem by inventing a very handy standard benchmark, Miles 
>Per Hour (MPH). 
>The computer industry has yet to develop such a benchmark, but we kept
>trying :-). 

>Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
>HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS

    Surely you are not talking about the 86 family.


bill michael
(wdm@pur-ee)