Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!pdn!oz!alan
From: alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Next computer (Re: CISC Silent Spring)
Message-ID: <7356@pdn.paradyne.com>
Date: 8 Feb 90 15:00:08 GMT
References: <8905@portia.Stanford.EDU> <160@zds-ux.UUCP> <2100@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: usenet@pdn.paradyne.com
Reply-To: alan@oz.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 21

In article <2100@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>  Having explained why vendors were interested in the 860, and what it
>offers relative to SPARC, would someone tell me why DG thinks the 88k is
>better than SPARC? Serious question, what has the 88k got that SPARC
>doesn't? 

Significantly better performance.  A better supplier.  The 88k Open Consortium
with proven BCS.  Cache coherency and FPU built-in.  Hardware multiply with
a latency of only four cycles, and the ability to start a new multiply thru
the pipe each clock cycle.  Super fast task swithching.   Indexed addressing
mode.  Highly useful "mak" (shift bitfield left) and "ext" (shift bitfield
right) instructions.

But that was a strange question to ask.  The natural question would seem
to be "What has SPARC got that the 88k, and the Rx000, don't?"


____"Congress shall have the power to prohibit speech offensive to Congress"____
Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne.  They do not speak for me. 
Mottos:  << Many are cold, but few are frozen. >>     << Frigido, ergo sum. >>