🚀 go-pugleaf

There was an article in mod.computers.workstations 
<8604291207.AA19518@caip.rutgers.edu> that said there was
a 4.2 available for this board (or set?).  Does this
board(s) have a standard buss?

Hi, a few months ago it was announced that the 32332 was here. My question
is "what's happened to the 32332?" I haven't heard or seen a word about it in 
months. Does anybody know what's going on?

In article <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP> doon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Harry W. Reed) writes:
>
>Hi, a few months ago it was announced that the 32332 was here. My question
>is "what's happened to the 32332?" I haven't heard or seen a word about it in 
>months. Does anybody know what's going on?

I have seen one.  It exists.  It is very, very fast.

-- 
-------
Disclaimer: Everything I say is probably a trademark of someone.  But
            don't worry, I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Scott Dorsey       " If value corrupts
kaptain_kludge         then absolute value corrupts absolutely"

ICS Programming Lab (Where old terminals go to die), Rich 110,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge

The 3216 is available with System V presently.  Rumours do
include the possibility of 4.2.

The data/address expansion buss between the CPU and memory boards
is proprietary.  I don't know if OEMs will be making use of it.

An I/O buss called 'Mini-bus' has had sufficient information 
released to allow designers of add-on graphics boards, etc. to
proceed with design.  It would appear to be a fledgling standard.

The SCSI mass storage interface is the most 'standard' of the lot.


			John Spraggs

		

   >>> "what's happened to the 32332?" <<<

I hate to be sarcastic, but unless National has really cleaned up their
act since they came out with this family of processors (what a
nightmare NS was in 82/83!), the stage which comes after the press
release is to sit down and well..., kind-of..., design the part.

Is there any indication that things are getting better?

Mike

Hmmm... Maybe I shouldn't bother people with this, but I wouldn't advise
anyone to plan a product on the new processor if things are the same.

In article <253@spar.UUCP>, faunt@spar.UUCP (Doug Faunt) writes:
> There was an article in mod.computers.workstations 
> <8604291207.AA19518@caip.rutgers.edu> that said there was
> a 4.2 available for this board (or set?).  Does this
> board(s) have a standard buss?

The following description is taken from the ICM-3216 data sheet
dated December 1985:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MiniBus
MiniBus is a high performance, synchronous 16-bit bus with
full support for multiprocessors, complete with parity on
address and data lines and physical addressing of all MiniBus
masters (8 maximum).  The MiniBus interface is provided through
the MiniBus Interface Controller (MBIC).  This single CMOS LSI
compatible component attaches directly to the NS32016 bus and
provides the complete bus interface.

MiniBus is not designed to compete with any of the 32-bit buses
whose purpose is to satisfy the bandwidth requirements of multiple
32-bit processors.  Rather, it is intended to provide a low cost,
low power, low real estate bus with similar multiprocessor system
characteristics on a smaller scale (16 bits of data, 8 masters).

Virtually all the LSI peripheral chips to support LAN's, disks,
terminals, floppies, tapes, GPIB and other system requirements
are designed in 8-bit or 16-bit widths and are cheaper and
more convenient to implement on a 16-bit bus when bandwidth
permits.  MiniBus is designed for these types of applications
and provides very cost effective solutions in these situations.
The MIBC is available to the customer for design of custom
boards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The connector used for the MinBus has 96 pins.  The documentation
for the ICM-3216 is:

ICM-3216-M    ICM3216 Hardware Reference Manual (420610289-001)

In article <1768@gitpyr.UUCP> kludge@gitpyr.UUCP (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>In article <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP> doon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Harry W. Reed) writes:
>>
>>Hi, a few months ago it was announced that the 32332 was here. My question
>>is "what's happened to the 32332?" I haven't heard or seen a word about it in 
>>months. Does anybody know what's going on?
>
>I have seen one.  It exists.  It is very, very fast.

I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
than a 16MHz 68020.

Snoopy
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
[My other workstation only has 2 32016s. Drat! a workstation gap!
Oh well, I bet I have more color planes than he does!  :-)   ]

> 
>    >>> "what's happened to the 32332?" <<<
> 
> I hate to be sarcastic, but unless National has really cleaned up their
> act since they came out with this family of processors (what a
> nightmare NS was in 82/83!), the stage which comes after the press
> release is to sit down and well..., kind-of..., design the part.
> 
> Is there any indication that things are getting better?
> 
> Mike
> 
> Hmmm... Maybe I shouldn't bother people with this, but I wouldn't advise
> anyone to plan a product on the new processor if things are the same.

National demonstrated working 32332's during the Uniforum Confrerence
February of 1986. I've personally seen equipment running unix on this chip.
What else can I say?

						Joe Mueller
						...!nsc!nsc-pdc!joemu

In article <2020@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes:
>I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
>with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
>than a 16MHz 68020.

    I would like to see these benchmarks.  I have been trying to get
some more recent ones, after having run a few on a demo machine at a
trade show.  I am writing a paper on 32-bit microprocessor design, and
the 332 is a good example of something that I would give my eyeteeth
for.
-- 
-------
Disclaimer: Everything I say is probably a trademark of someone.  But
            don't worry, I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Scott Dorsey       " If value corrupts
kaptain_kludge         then absolute value corrupts absolutely"

ICS Programming Lab (Where old terminals go to die), Rich 110,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge

Most of the traffic I've seen is discussing the name of the group.
How about some discussion of the NS32000 series chips as well.

In particular:

1) Is there any news about of Lilith-type machines based on 32000 series
chips?  (Wirth's group is porting Modula-2 and the Medos environment to a
32000-based machine.)  If the 32000 became the Modula-2 chip of choice then
it find a real niche.

2)  What's the prognosis for the 32000 series, given the serious competetion
from Motorola and Intel?  Seems like everybody except Symmetrix and Definicon
use 80{,2,3}86 or 680[012]0.  Most compilers only need to be written once,
so what other advantage might National have?  Can they build 200Mhz GaAs
32000-series chipset before Motorola and Intel and save themselves?

					- Ralph
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu		Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS

In article <1796@gitpyr.UUCP> kludge@gitpyr.UUCP (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>In article <2020@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes:
>>I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
>>with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
>>than a 16MHz 68020.
>
>    I would like to see these benchmarks.  I have been trying to get

I have a few comments & questions.

1) The story I have heard (albeit from sources that I don't view as gospel)
   is that the 32016 (in the symmetrics box) is s*l*o*w, about 1/4 a 68010.
   Is that true?

2) Another story I hear a lot is that people *claim* that the 32xxx chips are
   fast, but independant tests show that the claims are consistantly false.
   Can anyone comment on this?  I'd prefer to hear from people who:
   A) are not associated with National Semiconductor 
   B) are using a unix workstation based on a 32xxx chip set.

3) I've heard that the 32xxx series of CPU's are binary compatible.  If this
   is true, are they pin compatible?  The real question is: can I buy a 
   symmetrics box, pull the 32016 and replace it with a 32032 or 32332?

-- 
Larry McVoy
-----------
Arpa:  mcvoy@rsch.wisc.edu                              
Uucp:  {seismo, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!geophiz!larry      

"Just remember, wherever you go -- there you are."
 	-Buckaroo Banzai

> 
> I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
> with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
> than a 16MHz 68020.
> 
Shouldn't this be posted to net.rumor?

> Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu writes:
>
> 2)  What's the prognosis for the 32000 series, given the serious competetion
> from Motorola and Intel?  Seems like everybody except Symmetrix and Definicon
> use 80{,2,3}86 or 680[012]0.  Most compilers only need to be written once,
> so what other advantage might National have?  Can they build 200Mhz GaAs
> 32000-series chipset before Motorola and Intel and save themselves?

A recent Electronics was discussing 32 bit processors and said a couple of
interesting things:
1) ~1990 The market is expected to be 680x0 & 80x86	~60%
					ns32000		~18%
   (these numbers may be off a bit)	we3????		~11%
					others		~10%
   many of the people developing large-scale multi-processors (eg Sequent)
   are going with ns32000

2) It is claimed that the Japanese are going to get left out in the cold.
   The window of oppurtunity is closing on new architectures, and the majour
   American manufacturers are leary of cross-licensing agreements (and the
   copyright laws are getting much tighter)
-- 
usenet:	..!utzoo!ryesone!mason	Dave Mason, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
	..!utzoo!utcsri!mason	Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRI
CSNET:	mason@Toronto
ARPA:	mason%Toronto@CSNet-Relay
BITNET:	FCTY7053@RYERSON.BITNET

In article <216@motsj1.UUCP> kjm@motsj1.UUCP (Kevin Meyer) writes:
>> 
>> I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
>> with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
>> than a 16MHz 68020.
>> 
>Shouldn't this be posted to net.rumor?

No, net.fact!

>   many of the people developing large-scale multi-processors (eg Sequent)
>   are going with ns32000

Well, I don't know about "many".  "Some".  National's incredible delays in
getting working chips out the door turned off a LOT of people.  Sequent is
sticking with them, last I heard.  At least one other outfit started with
32032s for machine #1 but is using the 68020 for #2.  I fear the 32332 is
too little too late.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

> 1) The story I have heard (albeit from sources that I don't view as gospel)
>    is that the 32016 (in the symmetrics box) is s*l*o*w, about 1/4 a 68010.
>    Is that true?

It ain't fast.  0.25*68010 sounds a bit low, but as I recall the 32032
isn't lots faster than the 68000, so it makes sense that the 016 is slower.
It also depends on how fast one runs the clock (Symmetric has been around
for quite a while -- maybe they are running with a slow clock because of
an old design for old buggy chips) and on how fast the memory is.  And on
how much branching the code does; the 32016/32 *hates* to branch.

> 3) I've heard that the 32xxx series of CPU's are binary compatible...

Should be, from the specs I've seen.  I don't recall anything new in the
332 in the way of instructions, and the 016 and 032 are two peas from the
same pod.

> If this is true, are they pin compatible?

No.  Not even the same package:  the 016 is in a 48-pin DIP, the 32032 is
a chip carrier, and the 32332 is either a chip carrier or a pin-grid array
(I forget).  The 16-vs-32 difference of the 016 and the 032 is not as bad
as you would think, however; since the MMU needs a 16-bit bus either way,
a careful design can accommodate either a 32016 or a 32032 with a change
of socket and one PAL.  The 32332 might be 32032-compatible, again with
a different socket, if the design doesn't exploit some of the 332's goodies.
Not sure about that last, I didn't study the 332 very carefully.

In any case, there's no telling whether Symmetric has actually built their
box to permit such an upgrade.  Again, it's been around a long time; I
suspect not.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

In article <2815@sdcrdcf.UUCP> doon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Harry W. Reed) writes:
>In article <216@motsj1.UUCP> kjm@motsj1.UUCP (Kevin Meyer) writes:
>>> 
>>> I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
>>> with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
>>> than a 16MHz 68020.
>>> 
>>Shouldn't this be posted to net.rumor?
>
>No, net.fact!

Could you tell us why the 332 is so fast, what the benchmarks test, schedule
for general availability of the 15 MHz version, etc.

Motorola announced 20 MHz fully debugged 68020s a while ago.  Are they
selling 24 MHz versions yet?  How does the {best generally available or
best internal sample} 68020 compare with the 32332?


Cheering for another commercially viable 32 bit family, trying to stir
up the 68K vs 32K debate yet again, and fickle as hell (I used to *love*
the NS family, but the bugs and the 68020 changed my mind),

Jan Gray    jsgray@watdragon    University of Waterloo    519-885-1211 x3870

In article <1018@watdragon.UUCP> jsgray@watdragon.UUCP (Jan Gray) writes:

>Motorola announced 20 MHz fully debugged 68020s a while ago.  Are they
>selling 24 MHz versions yet?  How does the {best generally available or
>best internal sample} 68020 compare with the 32332?

We hope to be in standard production of 25 Mhz units by the end of this year.

  --  Dave Trissel  Motorola Semiconductor, Austin, Texas
    {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet

In article <438@geowhiz.UUCP> larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes:
>In article <1796@gitpyr.UUCP> kludge@gitpyr.UUCP (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>In article <2020@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes:
>>>I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
>>>with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
>>>than a 16MHz 68020.
>>
>>    I would like to see these benchmarks.

When the gentleman who did them gets back from his honeymoon I'll
ask him for more details.  (assuming that the results are considered
public domain, which they may not be)

>I have a few comments & questions.
>
>1) The story I have heard (albeit from sources that I don't view as gospel)
>   is that the 32016 (in the symmetrics box) is s*l*o*w, about 1/4 a 68010.
>   Is that true?

I don't know about the symmetrics box, but I've heard that our customers
have found the Tek 6130 (32016 @ 10MHz) to be faster than the Sun-2.

>2) Another story I hear a lot is that people *claim* that the 32xxx chips are
>   fast, but independant tests show that the claims are consistantly false.
>   Can anyone comment on this?  I'd prefer to hear from people who:
>   A) are not associated with National Semiconductor 
>   B) are using a unix workstation based on a 32xxx chip set.

I work for Tektronix, not NSC.  My current task is doing bugfixes and
enhancements on UTek (UNIX) utilities for the 6130.  I do as much
of my work as possible on doghouse (6130) because it's so much faster
than hammer (Vax780).  (Unless there are only 1-2 people on hammer,
which is pretty rare)

>3) I've heard that the 32xxx series of CPU's are binary compatible.  If this
>   is true, are they pin compatible?  The real question is: can I buy a 
>   symmetrics box, pull the 32016 and replace it with a 32032 or 32332?

No, the 32016 is a 48 pin dip, the 32032 is a 68 pin leadless chip carrier.
The Tek 6200 series had sockets for both.  Conversion was simple,
just pull out the 32016 and put in a 32032, and *presto* it runs faster.
Unfortunately, the 6200 series was cancelled for political reasons.

Snoopy
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy

In article <6732@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>...  The 16-vs-32 difference of the 016 and the 032 is not as bad
>as you would think, however; since the MMU needs a 16-bit bus either way,
>a careful design can accommodate either a 32016 or a 32032 with a change
>of socket and one PAL...

This reply is coming to you from a box that has both sockets on the CPU
board -- to change from 32016 to 32032, simply pull out one chip, insert
the other.  (Too bad we didn't get a chance to sell it.)
-- 
:::::: Artificial   Intelligence   Machines   ---   Smalltalk   Project ::::::
:::::: Jan Steinman		Box 1000, MS 60-405	(w)503/685-2956 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans	Wilsonville, OR 97070	(h)503/657-7703 ::::::

In article <216@motsj1.UUCP> kjm@motsj1.UUCP (Kevin Meyer) writes:
>>
>> I know someone who did benchmarks comparing the 32332 to the 68020,
>> with all else being identical (RAM, etc).  A 15MHz 32332 is faster
>> than a 16MHz 68020.
>>
>Shouldn't this be posted to net.rumor?


Or maybe net.jokes?
--
David Herron,  cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET, david@uky.csnet

> 3) I've heard that the 32xxx series of CPU's are binary compatible.  If this
>    is true, are they pin compatible?  The real question is: can I buy a 
>    symmetrics box, pull the 32016 and replace it with a 32032 or 32332?
> 
> -- 
> Larry McVoy
> -----------

After laying out boards using 32016 32032 and 32332, I can claim that they
are definently NOT pin compatible:

	32016   40 pin DIP
	32032   68 pin leadless ceramic chip carrier 
	32332   84 (plus one locating pin) = 85 pin PGA (pin grid array)

However, the same code for the 32016 does indeed run on 32032 and 32332.
					
					Pat Chewning
					NSC Portland Development Center
					15201 NW Greenbriar Pkwy
					Beaverton, OR 97006
					(503) 629-9090

Oops, that should have been:

	32016 48 pin DIP (not 40 pin DIP)

In article <6731@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>   many of the people developing large-scale multi-processors (eg Sequent)
>>   are going with ns32000
>
>Well, I don't know about "many".  "Some".  National's incredible delays in
>getting working chips out the door turned off a LOT of people.  Sequent is
>sticking with them, last I heard.  At least one other outfit started with
>32032s for machine #1 but is using the 68020 for #2.  I fear the 32332 is
>too little too late.

Supposedly, Sequent's next family (after the 21000) is going to be Intel-
or Motorola-based as well.


-- 
===================================
"Speak for the company?!   Gee, I have a hard enough time speaking for myself!"

====================  Roger B.A. Klorese
|    ///==\\       |  Celerity Computing (Eastern Region)
|   ///            |  40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701  +1 617 872-1552
|   \\\            |  
|    \\\==//       |  celerity!rklorese@sdcsvax.ARPA (sdcsvax!celerity!rklorese)
====================  celtics!roger@seismo.CSS.GOV   (seismo!celtics!roger)

In <438@geowhiz.UUCP> larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes:
> I have a few comments & questions.
>
> 1) The story I have heard (albeit from sources that I don't view as gospel)
>    is that the 32016 (in the symmetrics box) is s*l*o*w, about 1/4 a 68010.
>    Is that true?

You would be well advised to put even less faith in your "sources", for
even though I cannot answer for the Symmetrics box, the Dhrystone results
speak (with the usual truck load of salt) for themselves:

|*----------------DHRYSTONE VERSION 1.0 RESULTS BEGIN--------------------------
|*
|* MACHINE	MICROPROCESSOR	OPERATING	COMPILER	DHRYSTONES/SEC.
|* TYPE				SYSTEM				NO REG	REGS
|* --------------------------	------------	-----------	---------------
|* Colex DM-6	68010-8Mhz	Unisoft SYSV	cc		 378	 410
|* Apollo DN550	68010-?Mhz	AegisSR9/IX	cc 3.12		 666	 666
|* Cadmus 9000	68010-10Mhz	UNIX		cc		 714	 735
|* Cadmus 9790	68010-10Mhz 1MB	SVR0,Cadmus3.7	cc		 720	 747
|* Burroughs XE550 68010-10Mhz	Centix 2.10	cc		 769	 769 CT1
|* ATT 3B2/300	WE32000-?Mhz	UNIX 5.0.2	cc		 735	 806
|* Apollo DN320	68010-?Mhz	AegisSR9/IX	cc 3.12		 806	 806
|* IRIS-2400	68010-10Mhz	UNIX System V	cc		 772	 829
|* IRIS-1400	68010-10Mhz	UNIX System V	cc		 909	1000
|* NSC ICM-3216 NSC 32016-10Mhz	UNIX SVR2	cc		1041	1084
|		-------------
|* ATT PC7300	68010-10Mhz	UNIX 5.0.2	cc		1041	1111
|* Sun2/120	68010-10Mhz	Sun 4.2BSD	cc		1136	1219
|* MASSCOMP 500	68010-10MHz	RTU V3.0	cc (V3.2)	1156	1238
|* Cyb DataMate	68010-12.5Mhz	Uniplus 5.0	Unisoft cc	1162	1250
|* Sun2/120	68010-10Mhz	Standalone	cc		1219	1315
|* Sequent Balance 8000	NS32032-10MHz	Dynix 2.0	cc	1250	1315 N12
|		-------------
|* IBM PC/DSI-32 32032-10Mhz	MSDOS 3.1	GreenHills 2.14	1282	1315 C3
|		-------------
|* Cyb DataMate	68010-12.5Mhz	Uniplus 5.0	Unisoft cc	1470	1562 S

> 2) Another story I hear a lot is that people *claim* that the 32xxx chips are
>    fast, but independant tests show that the claims are consistantly false.
>    Can anyone comment on this?  I'd prefer to hear from people who:
>    A) are not associated with National Semiconductor 
>    B) are using a unix workstation based on a 32xxx chip set.

See Dhrystones above.  People with access to 32000 based
workstations from Tektronix, Intergraph & Whitechapel, etc.,
would be ideal candidates for expanding on this questions.
For floating point fans, it's probably a save bet that the
32k based systems outperform most existing (ie. excluding
68020/68881) 68k systems.  Some concrete figures on this
would be of interest.

> 3) I've heard that the 32xxx series of CPU's are binary compatible.  If this
>    is true, are they pin compatible?  The real question is: can I buy a 
>    symmetrics box, pull the 32016 and replace it with a 32032 or 32332?

I'm not sure what you mean by "pin compatible".  If you mean
signal and electrical compatibility, the answer is basically yes.

There would however, be absolutely no point in replacing the
32016 with a 32032, as they are identical save for the CPU bus
interface.  You would need a modest amount of logic to make a
16 bit data bus look like a 32 bit bus (with possible degradation
in performance).  The 32332 is a different story.  Since it has
dynamic bus sizing, it could indeed easily replace a 32016,
with an increase in performance due to the deeper prefetch queue
and separate ALU/Shifter in the address path.

A small adapter board containing the 32332, could be plugged into
the 32016 socket, although you might need to bring an auxiliary
power source onto the board, to satisfy the 32332s greater power
requirements.

P.S. You can find some benchmark results for 32032 IBM-PC add-on board
in a recent issue of UNIX/WORLD.

			Bjorn R. Bjornsson
			Department of Computing Science
			University of Alberta

In article <921@alberta.UUCP> bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) writes:
>In <438@geowhiz.UUCP> larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes:
>> I have a few comments & questions.
>>
>> 1) The story I have heard (albeit from sources that I don't view as gospel)
>>    is that the 32016 (in the symmetrics box) is s*l*o*w, about 1/4 a 68010.
>>    Is that true?
>
>You would be well advised to put even less faith in your "sources", for
>even though I cannot answer for the Symmetrics box, the Dhrystone results
>speak (with the usual truck load of salt) for themselves:
>
>|*----------------DHRYSTONE VERSION 1.0 RESULTS BEGIN-------------------------
>|* NSC ICM-3216 NSC 32016-10Mhz	UNIX SVR2	cc		1041	1084
>|		-------------

Actually, we had a Symmetrics rep over back in December or January and
we did get a chance to dhrystone their unit.  Although the figure escapes
me now, I believe that it was in the 7-800 range.  One major stumbling block
we did notice was that the compile times were enormous, certainly several
times as long as a Sun-2, and about as slow as my antiquated Callan.  The
line from the rep was that at the time, Symmetrics was still shipping an
old compiler based on some silly theoreticians papers, and that the code
it was generating was being threaded this way and that, generating subroutine
calls here and there with all the nasty activation record stuff, etc etc etc.

I was rather interested, though, by his claim that Symmetrics was on the
verge of releasing their 32032 version, soon to be followed by higher-
performance NS parts.  Also, he mentioned that a new compiler was in the
works.  Perhaps its time to hit them for fresh literature again.

Although this is completely incidental to the architecture, I probably should
add that somebody at Symmetrics was eating their Wheaties when they arranged
for the 4.2 port...it looked quite complete and happy, and was the first
machine that I saw anyway that included a variant on Chris Torek's ^T hack.

-dave
-- 
David Hsu  (301)454-1433 || -8798	"It was Dave, not me...honest!" -eneevax
Communication & Signal Processing Lab / Engineering Computer Facility
The University of Maryland   -~-   College Park, MD 20742
ARPA:hsu@eneevax.umd.edu  UUCP:[seismo,allegra,rlgvax]!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu

"Filmed on location in space"

In article <699@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes:

>We hope to be in standard production of 25 Mhz units by the end of this year.
>
>  --  Dave Trissel  Motorola Semiconductor, Austin, Texas
>    {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet

When will MMUs for these be available in quantity?

(really! I'm sure the 440x group would like to know!)

Snoopy
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy