Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!bpa!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!UNCAEDU.BITNET!svermeulen%Janus.MRC.AdhocNet.CA
From: svermeulen%Janus.MRC.AdhocNet.CA@UNCAEDU.BITNET (Steve Vermeulen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: 68030, how much faster?
Message-ID: <880806111207.003@Janus.MRC.AdhocNet.CA>
Date: 6 Aug 88 17:12:07 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 35

Regarding the 68030...

+From: cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich)
+Mac compatibility is pretty unlikely, considering that Jobs isn't with Apple
+anymore... and as for the 68030, I forgot to say to buy a CSA 68030 board...
+(BTW, has anyone out there tried one?  Does it use all the 68030's features?
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+Does it support Memory Management compatibly with the A2620?)
+                                                        -- Jim

While at AmiExpo in January I pestered the CSA sales rep until he allowed
me to do a crude compiling benchmark on his 020 and 030 board.  I had
brought with me a copy of Manx C 3.4 and a LARGE piece of source code.
On both the 030 and 020 machine I put all the files into RAM: and ran
the same short compile and link script.  Note the only fast ram on both
machines was 32 bit wide static ram.  What I wanted to know was if the
030 card was faster than the 020 card for the work I do a lot of.

Anyway, when we ran it (timing by SEIKO) both the 020 and 030 did the
compile and link in exactly (to less than 1%) the same time.  I did
observe the MandleBrot program being run on both systems, in this case
a 68030+68882 ran about 1.7 times as fast as a 68020+68881.

Note that the 030 board that I tried was a pre-production model and
---MOST IMPORTANTLY--- did NOT run with the 030's data cache enabled,
I don't know if the production version of CSA's 030 board does allow
the data cache to be used.

BTW, the 020 and 030 were about 3 times as fast as a stock Ami 2000 with
no true fast ram.


                      Stephen Vermeulen
                      Author: Express Paint
                      Chairman: AMUC.