Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari16,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: The Motorola 68030
Message-ID: <402@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Sep-86 20:40:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: vaxb.402
Posted: Sun Sep 28 20:40:48 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 19:34:23 EDT
References: <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> <1837@well.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 31
Keywords: new motorola chips mmu fast
Xref: watmath net.micro.68k:1896 net.micro.amiga:5044 net.micro.atari16:2262 net.micro.mac:8054
Summary: Needs 100ns memory, not 25ns

In article <1837@well.UUCP>, swalton@well.UUCP (Stephen R. Walton) writes:

> >The bus data transfer rate of the 68030 is 40 Mbytes/sec.
> 
> Think about this.  That's a memory access time of 25 nanoseconds, more than
> 4 times as fast as the memory we use in our PC's, Macs, Amigas, and Apples.

If the 68030 is anything like the 68020, you probably only need 100ns
cycle time memories, since the bus can be four bytes wide. The access time
will have to be less, though, to allow for setting up the address.

> >Now, when will I be able to connect one to my Amiga?
> 
> Probably soon.  But it won't be noticably faster than a CSA 68020...
> An editorial on the subject of the 68040 (yes, 40) in a recent issue of
> a small PC magazine commented that these chips are so fast that a fair
> amount of high-speed cache memory is absolutely essential to take full
> advantage of them.  And that means minicomputer pricing, not micros.
> Unless one of you hot-shot chip designers out there can put together a
> 1 MB DRAM with 25 ns access which will sell for less than $100 apiece :->

I think it should be possible to build a small, fast, cheap machine using
the 68030 at nearly full speed. The trick would be to not use cache memory,
just make it all fast. You only need 16 8KX8 static RAM's to make up 128K
of memory. So a *really* fast 128K Mac ought to be possible.

The question is, does anyone want one? Or would they rather have 2M of
slower memory for the same price?

     Radford Neal
     The University of Calgary