Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!caip!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari16,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: The Motorola 68030
Message-ID: <807@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 13:43:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.807
Posted: Mon Sep 29 13:43:47 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Oct-86 01:21:48 EDT
References: <877@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 50
Xref: mnetor net.micro.68k:1274 net.micro.amiga:4932 net.micro.atari16:2207 net.micro.mac:7306

> Xref: cbmvax net.micro.68k:327 net.micro.amiga:2836 net.micro.atari16:2165 net.micro.mac:2966
> 
> 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

Yea, they aren't expecting first silicon on the 68030 until next spring or 
so, last I heard.  And sure you CAN get a '386 system, like the Compaq, today,
or a 68020 system (a "Turbo" Amiga is in the same price range).  But instead
of comparing virtual performance, the actual performance should really be 
compared.  Today's MS-DOS based 80386 system, like the '286 systems that
preceed it, are still emulating an 8088, still have software than only 
supports 640K or so of normally mapped memory, etc.  You can add UN*X for a
better throughput.  The "Turbo" Amiga, and Amiga with a 14.4MHz 68020 board
and some fast 32 bit RAM will work much better with the "base" system
software.  Every progam that runs on the Amiga has the potential to use the
whole 4 Gigabyte address space along with the faster speed and wider bus.
Also, some run-time loaded Amiga libraries can be replaced with libraries
that take advantage of the 68020's additional op-codes, 68881 coprocessor,
etc.  Still, programs will have to be recompiled with a 68020 compiler to
take full advantage of the processor, and of course, UN*X could be added.
I think a close comparison of these two systems would indicate the current
"off-the-shelf" winner in the Motorola-Intel battle, at least for the $3000
to $5000 price range.  We'll have to wait for an 80386 based workstation, to
compare against a Sun-3 or the like, for the title in that price range.


-- 
============================================================================
Dave Haynie    {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh

	These opinions are my own, though if you try them out, and decide
	that you really like them, a small donation would be appreciated.