Article View: net.micro.68k
Article #1096Re: The Motorola 68030
From: mitsuharu hadeishi
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1986 22:33
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1986 22:33
16 lines
1692 bytes
1692 bytes
In article <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> Rodney Ricks writes: >The chip is said to run software 20% to 30% faster than the 68020. I believe I read a press release about the 68030 in which it was stated that the 68030 was capable of 8 MIPS, approximately 8 times that of the VAX 11/780, and 2 times that of the 80386. This is at a clock rate of 16-20 Mhz, I'm not sure which. The 68020 is capable of about 1.5 MIPS at a clock rate of 14 Mhz. This puts the 68030 at about 5 times faster than the 68020 at the same clock rate. Apparently the 68030 uses what is called "Harvard parallel architecture". Now that Motorola has released this chip, they have in *every category of chip* a far superior chip than does Intel. 68030 > 80386, 68020 > 80286, 68010 and 68000 >> 80186, 8086, 68008 > 8088. The 68000 series chips are in every case more orthogonally designed, faster, more compatible with each other, and easier to program. -Mitsu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!nike!think!husc6!husc4!hadeishiReferences:
<2270@gitpyr.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!nike!think!husc6!husc4!hadeishi From: hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari16,net.micro.mac Subject: Re: The Motorola 68030 Message-ID: <262@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> Date: Sat, 27-Sep-86 18:33:06 EDT Article-I.D.: husc6.262 Posted: Sat Sep 27 18:33:06 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 06:19:43 EDT References: <2270@gitpyr.UUCP> Sender: news@husc6.HARVARD.EDU Reply-To: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) Organization: Harvard Science Center Lines: 16 Keywords: new motorola chips mmu fast Summary: The 68030 is MUCH faster than that . . .