Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware
Article #840Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
From: David Kastrup
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:50
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:50
24 lines
2927 bytes
2927 bytes
"B. Joshua Rosen" <bjrosen@polybus.com> writes: > In <95mvgukpc993tcite11gntmdrcndi8iiio@4ax.com>, Bitey wrote: > > > > didn't the 8080/8086 had a shared data/memory bus, now thats a wondeful > > design decsion...it would be fine for some embedded application....but > > not as the CPU in a PC > > > > All microprocessors of that time had shared memory/data buses. A > really big package had 64 pins, there might have been some 80 pin > packages (my memory is a bt fuzzy) but that was it. Z80 had 40pins, and no shared data/memory bus. Remember that we are talking about a piddly 8bit data bus, sharing it will not buy you much since you'll also need a few control pins to go with the concept. And it will make small unbuffered designs lots harder to do: with the Z80, you wired memory and data for a few chips all together, used a PROM or PAL for address decoding, and had a complete solution. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<x54rfzpv0m.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm01.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <1fdyxzl.1eky32lcx38cvN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <95mvgukpc993tcite11gntmdrcndi8iiio@4ax.com> <pan.2002.06.19.02.33.36.943472.20068@polybus.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f9e16,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf9e16,public
X-Google-Thread: 1045b9,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1045b9,public
X-Google-Thread: 102b32,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public
X-Google-Thread: f65d0,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-19 00:56:02 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm01.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
Date: 19 Jun 2002 09:50:17 +0200
Organization: T-Online
Lines: 24
Sender: dak@tupik.goethe.zz
Message-ID: <x54rfzpv0m.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>
References: <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <1fdyxzl.1eky32lcx38cvN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> <x58z5c3oop.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <95mvgukpc993tcite11gntmdrcndi8iiio@4ax.com> <pan.2002.06.19.02.33.36.943472.20068@polybus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1024473096 07 27607 4zupbHKGTbAImY 020619 07:51:36
X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com
X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net
X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6,xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl
\!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i";/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^
Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50