Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!gatech!amdcad!tim
From: tim@amdcad.AMD.COM (Tim Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The 360 was a design landmark  (360 vs vax)
Message-ID: <18088@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 15:32:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.18088
Posted: Wed Aug 26 15:32:44 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Aug-87 06:26:00 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp> <916@haddock.ISC.COM> <418@astroatc.UUCP> <26444@sun.uucp> <422@astroatc.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@amdcad.UUCP (Tim Olson)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices
Lines: 13

In article <422@astroatc.UUCP> johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale) writes:
+-----
|360:  designed for easy of implementation  (An idea common to RISC)
|VAX:  designed for maximum code density    (Poor choise today!)
|RISCs:designed for speed, thru simplicity
+-----
If the VAX instruction-set was designed for "maximum code density", they
certainly did a poor job.  Many processors (including some "RISCs" --
IBM ROMP and CRISP) can routinely beat it in code density.

	-- Tim Olson
	Advanced Micro Devices
	(tim@amdcad.amd.com)