Xref: utzoo comp.misc:1702 comp.sys.m68k:677 comp.sys.mac:11170 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10739
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!husc6!husc2!sipples
From: sipples@husc2.UUCP (sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: The New Chips
Message-ID: <1430@husc2.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jan 88 05:32:35 GMT
References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: sipples@husc2.UUCP (Timothy Sipples)
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Lines: 27

>IBM is sticking with the Intel line, so the 80386 will probalbly be more 
>than the 68020.

Whoa!  Not to diminish IBM's proven wisdom :-), but other manufacturers think
very differently.  Ever heard of Apple?  Sun?  Not to mention the brains
behind Postscript laser printers, including, I believe, IBM's.  Also keep in
mind the Atart ST/Mega series and the Commodore Amiga 500/1000/2000.  Would
it make much sense, anyway, for IBM to abandon a large installed base of
80xx(x) machines, even if a better chip comes along?

Anyway, the Motorola 68030 is now state-of-the-art, with the 68040 announced.
If you are inquiring about benchmark results, I don't know of any direct com-
parisons between the 68030 and the 80386.  However, according to Byte and
other sources, the Motorola family now outpaces the Intel family in most tests.
The microprocessor wars continue, however, with Intel supposedly working on
an 80486.  [Caveat: benchmarks are sometimes misleading.]

Instruction sets: the 68xxx is a little more RISC-like than the 80xx(x);
I've heard arguments on both sides over which is superior.

Support chips: the 68xxx's math coprocessors apparently handle transcendentals
better than the 80xx(x)'s counterparts.  Apple's move in making the math
coprocessor standard on the Macintosh II will provide developers with a nice
incentive to take advantage of the extra mathematical capabilities.

Timothy Sipples  |  sipples%husc2@husc6.harvard.edu
                 |  ...ihnp4!seismo!harvard!husc6!husc2!sipples