Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!ames!ucsd!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!uupsi!rodan!amichiel
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Why 68000?
Message-ID: <2058@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 90 23:08:52 GMT
References: <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com> <3919@hub.UUCP>
Reply-To: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen)
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Lines: 24

In article <3919@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes:
>From article <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com>, by dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott):
>> What are the advantages of designing a 68000 system over a 68030
>> at this point?  I would assume that volume CPU chip cost wouldn't
>> be that much more.

>why the 68000 was used in the portable: power consumption. It was


The unit price for a 68000 is about $ 10, the 68020 about $ 90, and the
68030 about $ 200.  This price structure is very similiar to that for quan
purchases made today.  The 68030 is a LOT more expensive just at the part
level.  A 68030 system requires a LOT more & a WHOLE LOT more espensive
components to complete a whole system.  Look at a Mac plus, (the old ones)
are mostly indentifiable cheap $ .29 each components (generally).  Then
pop open a mac II.  That suck is chock full of 'funny' numbers & custom
chips, which probably average about $ 7.50 each.  All of this stacks up
to expensive hardware.  Then the speed requirements make the system ram
expensive.  If apple then made the clock slow to save $$$, the public
would scream and other companies would eat them up with a speed up kit,
now fairly cheap cause apple has done all the hard part with the 030 design.
Power is a good factor, as shown above, but it probably is nearly the
smallest consideration made on a system of this type.
al