🚀 go-pugleaf

> 
>> Besides testing the memory efficiency of the compiled code, take
>>a look at the execution efficiency; I'd expect the 68000 to do quite a bit
>>better than the 8086 at the same clock speed with comparable compilers,
>>especially with program and data spaces over 64K bytes.
> 
> On this point, I have to agree, although you have to consider that clock speed
> is one of the most meaningless measures you can possibly come up with.  

I did say clock speed, STUPID ME.  What I MEANT was bus speed, which is one
of the mosy meaningful measures I can come up with, since much of the cost of
a system is based on the speed you run the bus at.  A 68000 at 8MHz runs a
2MHz bus, I though that the 8086 at 8MHz was very similar.  I don't know the
ratio of clock to bus speed on the 32K series, but I think its more like 
5:1 than 4:1; anyone know for sure?

> ----------------
> Mike Farren
> hoptoad!farren
-- 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Dave Haynie    {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh

"As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I had chalked up many a mile."
"I read dozens of books about heros and crooks, and I learned much from both 
	of their styles.."
						-Jimmy Buffett

	These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/