Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!snorkelwacker!spdcc!mirror!prism!rob
From: rob@prism.TMC.COM
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 68040 vs 80246 (Was Re: Xerox sues
Message-ID: <206900148@prism>
Date: 18 Dec 89 21:03:00 GMT
References: <18213@netnews.upenn.edu>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:netnews.upenn.edu:-1821300:prism:206900148:000:1130
Nf-From: prism.TMC.COM!rob    Dec 18 16:03:00 1989


>Why not include the 80486.  From what I here, the 68040 is plenty
>faster.  I don't remember the specifics - as a matter of fact I don't
>think the specs are out but word is it's faster.

   I'd be interested to know where you heard this. As you said, information 
on the 68040 is very scarce, but most of what I've heard suggests that its 
integer performance will be comparable to that of the the 80486, though its 
FPU, supposedly of a Weitek-like design, may offer an advantage. 

   The cynic in me is reminded of the claims that preceded the release
of the 68030 a couple of years ago. The 68030 was supposed to be two, 
four, maybe ten times faster than the 80386, depending on which rumor you 
believed. Whatever the 68030's merits, which are many, it's safe to say 
that it didn't live up to its advance billing in this regard.

   Anyone remember a rumor that floated around about 2 years ago to the 
effect that the 68040 would be a 64-bit CPU incorporating hardware emulation 
of the 80286 instruction set? Or that the 80486 would have user-programmable 
microcode? Too bad more of these predictions don't come true.