Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!srcsip!coltrane!shankar From: shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: ROM 04 GS and resolution Message-ID: <57905@srcsip.UUCP> Date: 10 Feb 90 23:31:23 GMT References: <16475.apple.net@pro-sol> Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM Reply-To: shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar) Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center Lines: 40 In article <16475.apple.net@pro-sol> ruzun@pro-sol.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes: >Well in my experience with the 65816 and the 68000, the 65816 is slightly >faster than a similar clocked 68000, that is an 8Mhz 65816 will perform, >in most applications slightly better than an 8Mhz 68000. I don't agree, since I think the difference is more significant for most non-number-crunching applications - maybe 2.5 times as fast or so. My 7 MHz TWGS runs circles around the 8 MHz 68000 in the Mac Plus when doing typical desktop junk, like opening and closing windows. The difference is even more significant if you consider the slow video memory and the fact that the TWGS uses cache. > BUT for some applications the 68000 is MUCH faster. True. Like number crunching. See below. >Lichty and Eyes in their >book on 65816 programming, indicate that an 8Mhz 65816 would be slower than an >8Mhz 68000 for an optimized sieve bench, But the sieve benchmark uses multiplication heavily, which is one of the things that the 65816 is worst at (I guess non-existence of a multiply opcode qualifies to be rated badly in multiplies). > ...which they concede is a good test of processor performance. Let them post on comp.arch and watch the flames! >I do not see how anyone can think that a 9 Mhz 65816 machine can perform as >well as a 15 mhz 68020, it cannot. Agreed. Just overenthusiastic 65XXX'ers here. --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar