Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!uwvax!puff!schumann
From: schumann@puff.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: 65C816 programming weirdness; is it true?
Message-ID: <433@puff.WISC.EDU>
Date: Tue, 27-Jan-87 12:06:26 EST
Article-I.D.: puff.433
Posted: Tue Jan 27 12:06:26 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Jan-87 20:41:50 EST
References: <2515@ecsvax.UUCP> <1226@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> <853@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 17
Summary: Oh yeah?

In article <853@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU>, ln63wzb@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU (Greg Robbins ) writes:
> In article <1226@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
> >[..] I think the 808X would be
> >very hard for the average 65XX programmer to pick up, since it does
> >things so differently.
True.  But once you start, it is a very powerful inst. set.
  
> The 8086 is, flexibility wise, in a class above the newer '816.
Nicely put.
  
> What about the future, I wonder?  Though Mensch/Western Design
> Center has announced plans for a 32-bit version of the 658XX, who
> really wants it?
OK... Remember that a 65C02 running at a mere 2 MHz has a memory cycle that
is as fast as an 808X running at 8MHz (an 808X takes four clks per memory
fetch).  This is what pipelined architecutre does (NOT an instruction
pipeline).