🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1178@csib.UUCP> jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) writes:
In article <799@unccvax.UUCP| cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes:
|In article <116@faccs.UUCP>, dbt@faccs.UUCP (Data base translator ) writes:
|> Looking at it this way, the '020 not only compares well with the '386; it
|> blows the socks off its Intel counterpart, the '286. And the '030? I can't
|> wait.
|
|It really angers many people to see blind statements such as yours about the
|68020 'blowing the socks off the '286'...  In case you hadn't been reading
|the trade journals.  AMD has recently been shipping 16Mhz versions of the
|80286 which incidently contains, on the chip, memory management capabilities.
|Something that the 68020 MUST go off chip for, namely, the 68851 MMU.  I
|believe most net readers would appreciate documented numbers, BEFORE you
|make any more of these irritable BLIND statements.

Here is another set of numbers also showing the 020 is faster then a 286
and a 386.  From IEEE Micro Vol 6 No. 4.  "A Benchmark Comparison of 32-bit
Microprocessors."  These are based on the EDN 16-bit bench marks, modified for
32 bit operation.  The table is copied from Table 3 in the article and includes
only the ratio column for dynamic memory.  The 68000 was measured at 8 Mhz
and the 286 at 10 Mhz, so I multiplied by the appropiate ratios to get 
numbers for 16 Mhz.  The ratios are the time processor X took divided by the
time a 68020 took.  So a 286 to 2.45 times as long to complete the tests as
did the 020 at 16 Mhz.

80286     2.45
68000     2.31
80386     1.79        All numbers at 16 Mhz
68020 N   1.96
68020 C   1.00

The N and C are No cache and Cache.  Conclusion:  The 020 blows the socks
of the 286 and does a good job aginst the 386 as well.  You milage may differ.



|
|/Carl
|...decvax!mcnc!unnccvax!cbenda

Jerry Whitnell                           It's a damn poor mind that can only
Communication Solutions, Inc.            think of one way to spell a word.
						-- Andrew Jackson