Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!intelca!oliveb!glacier!Shasta!simoni
From: simoni@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Richard Simoni)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari16,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: The Motorola 68030
Message-ID: <877@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 00:13:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: Shasta.877
Posted: Mon Sep 29 00:13:15 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 13:36:33 EDT
References: <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Reply-To: simoni@Shasta.UUCP (Richard Simoni)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.micro.68k:1882 net.micro.amiga:5006 net.micro.atari16:2234 net.micro.mac:8022

In article <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:

>Apparently the 68030
>uses what is called "Harvard parallel architecture".  Now that Motorola
>has released this chip, they have in *every category of chip* a far
>superior chip than does Intel.  68030 > 80386, 68020 > 80286, 68010 and
>68000 >> 80186, 8086, 68008 > 8088.  The 68000 series chips are in every case
>more orthogonally designed, faster, more compatible with each other,
>and easier to program.

I agree that the Motorola chips are nicer in many ways than the Intel chips.
But to say Motorola has "released" the chip is stretching things a bit.  Not
only has the 68030 not been formally introduced as a product yet, but the
artciles I've read (e.g., Electronics, September 18, 1986) say volume
production is more than a year away.  The 80386 is here now, and actually
has a system available (Compaq) which uses it.  In other words, it's not
really fair to compare that which Intel has now with what Motorola will have
in a year.  A more fair comparison is between the 68020 and the 80386.

Rich Simoni
Center for Integrated Systems
Stanford University
simoni@sonoma.stanford.edu
...!decwrl!glacier!shasta!simoni