Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!think!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!cae780!amdcad!amd!intelca!intsc!tomk From: tomk@intsc.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: Re: Recent Motorola ad seen in Byte Message-ID: <930@intsc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Apr-87 20:52:41 EST Article-I.D.: intsc.930 Posted: Thu Apr 9 20:52:41 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Apr-87 15:11:09 EST References: <362@sbcs.UUCP> <1466@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <580@plx.UUCP> Distribution: comp Organization: Intel Sales, Silicon Valley, Ca. Lines: 66 Xref: utgpu comp.sys.m68k:319 comp.sys.intel:131 > In article <580@plx.UUCP> (Ed Chaban) writes: > In article <1466@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, lodman@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Mike Lodman) writes: >> In article <362@sbcs.UUCP> root@sbcs.UUCP (Root) writes: >>>What did you, fellow Usenetters, think of the recent Motorola advertisement >>>(April '87 Byte) about 68020 -vs- 80386? Used to be that Intel dispensed >> >> Personally, I find Motorola's claims much more believable. >> > Me too, I'm told that if you want to take advantage of the 386 performance, > you have to use some DISGUSTINGLY EXPENSIVE RAM. > Not TRUE!!! To run a near 0ws 16MHz machine you can do a small system (<8MB) with 100ns DRAMs. A larger system requires 80ns. If you want to put a cache controller in the design it uses 45 ns statics for the data and 25 to 35 ns statics for the tags depending on the control circuit. With the forthcoming cache controller chip you can use 35ns SRAMS with 20MHz CPU. > The other thing to remember is that the Motorola parts are SHIPPING at > 25Mhz. A 25Mhz '020 blows the doors off a 16.? Mhz '386. > Show me a benchmark that does not fit in 256 bytes thats even keeps up with at 16MHz 386. 386's are now shipping at 20MHz for the speed freaks. 25MHz soon. > To me, the only advantage of '386 is the virtual DOS machine capability. > the ability to run DOS as a task under UNIX seems neat. > That plus speed too. > Now the REAL screamer is CLIPPER. The nice thing about CLIPPER is > that you can really cut down on all those support chips (building an > 8k cache out of discrete components is EXPENSIVE. > I will let the intergraph (the only known implementation) benchmark numbers speak for themselves. I can see that a lot of people are going to start comparing the Compaq 386 machine against the Sun 3/260. Just remember that the cost of a box has a lot to do with how much performance optimization goes into the design. The street price for a 386AT clone will be around $3500 by summer. That is compared to an $8000-$50000 Sun machine. Price performace is still a rule that we are stuck with. Or in other words, the CPU doesn't mean nearly as much as the memory and I/O subsystems when you talk about performance. I will be the first one to admit that the IBM PC and its derivatives are a kludge. But don't blame the 386 for IBM's incompetence. ------ "Ever notice how your mental image of someone you've known only by phone turns out to be wrong? And on a computer net you don't even have a voice..." tomk@intsc.UUCP Tom Kohrs Regional Architecture Specialist Intel - Santa Clara P.S. If anyone wants to see a real 386 machine in action call your local sales office for a demo and get your benchmarks ready.