🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vtkg5$d0n@inews.sc.intel.com>, mvilas@zws298.sc.intel.com (Mark Vilas) writes:
|> In article <3vrf2o$ffq@meaddata.meaddata.com>, christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:

|> |> There's never been a generally agreed-upon definition of bitness.
|> |> Intel likes bigger bitnesses; they called the 8-bit data bus 8088 a
|> |> 16-bit processor.  Using the same rules, one would call the 68000 a
|> |> 32-bit processor.  Motorola used more conservative rules.  Since then,
|> |> the need for marketing hype has dissuaded them from that responsible
|> |> stance. 

|> Actually, there is a convention to describe bitness, while maybe
|> not "generally agreed-upon", most processors adhere to it,
|> including the 8088 and the 68000.  This is data path width.  This
|> is not to be confused with register size or external data bus
|> width.  Both the 8088 and the 68000 have 16 bit data paths and are
|> thus classified as 16 bit processors. 

What do you mean by "data path width"?  I can't think of any measure
where the 8088 and the 68000 would have the same numbers, except intel
marketing brochures.

Chris

-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@aol.com