🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4103@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

    In article <907@aber-cs.UUCP>, pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
    > As to some small bit of available evidence, it is not very controversial
    > that the 386 is usually a tad faster than the 68020 with roughly equivalent
    > system technology (e.g. a cached 386 at 20Mhz tipically beats a cached 68020
    > at 25 Mhz under gcc), and code size is a tad smaller as well.
    
    Of course you realise you're comparing intel's latest production technology
    with Motorola's last-but-one generation.

No, I did not realize that. Maybe I was wrong -- but what I see around me,
avaiable for purchase, is 68020/386 workstations, for roughly the same price.
If I were going to compare the Intel/Motorola families, I would couple
them as 6809/8088, 68010/80286, 68020/386.

Also, the 68020 was introduced not much before the 386, and certainly the
386 has been around far longer than the 68030. Or I am goofing?

    How does the 80386 compare to the 68030?

You get me a 68030 and I tell you :->... From various papers and benchmarks
on the few 68030 machines around (Next, Macs, Suns), it seems that one
statement I have read (68030 == 68020+10/15%) is quite reasonable overall.

This would put the 68030 on a par with the 386 in speed. As to the original
issue, code size, that is not going to be influenced. Maybe having 16
registers is really better than 8 registers only, but then probably the
difference is not large enough to compensate for the shorter common
instructions of the 386.

Ah, by the way: I HATE the Intel architecture. Too bad that their technology
floats on a sea of dollars from all the suckers (like me :->) that buy
AT clones...
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk