jcallen@Encore.COM (Jerry Callen) (05/03/91)
In article <3397@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > Perhaps integrating the cache, MMU, and FPU on the same chip has had >some effect? A savings which I see is now being copied in RISC. Chips >like the Intel 32 bit CISC offerings do make design a lot easier, and >because of fewer support ships and connection smaller, cheaper, and more >reliable. Harumph...the latest chip announcements from Motorola include (more or less): - a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled - a 68030 with the MMU disabled - cheaper/faster/better 68020s and 68000s (no FPU or MMU to disable) What's the price of the cheapest Moto chip to include an MMU (68030)? -- Jerry Callen jcallen@encore.com
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/03/91)
In article <14720@encore.Encore.COM> jcallen@Encore.COM (Jerry Callen) writes:
Harumph...the latest chip announcements from Motorola include (more or less):
- a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled
- a 68030 with the MMU disabled
- cheaper/faster/better 68020s and 68000s (no FPU or MMU to disable)
What's the price of the cheapest Moto chip to include an MMU (68030)?
I hope NeXT isn't planning to put any of these in their machines.
They just won't do the job. It sounds like Apple trying to keep those
profit margins up.
-Mikesysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (05/04/91)
In article <14720@encore.Encore.COM>, jcallen@Encore.COM (Jerry Callen) writes: >Harumph...the latest chip announcements from Motorola include (more or less): > >- a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled >- a 68030 with the MMU disabled >- cheaper/faster/better 68020s and 68000s (no FPU or MMU to disable) > >What's the price of the cheapest Moto chip to include an MMU (68030)? I hate the marketing dweebs at Intel (yes, Intel) who started pushing this idea of making and selling castrated chips to capture market share.... I suppose if you want your toaster to be binary-compatible with your Mac, it's a wonderful idea, but somehow my skin crawls at this bastardization of technology on the basis of a marketing decision. Of course, Intel is the Great Satan in all of this, having started up the '386SX to go head-to-head with the AMD et al '286 clones, thereby killing anything less than a '386SX (this might be construed as a Good Thing, because the '286 was screwed up to being with), and the '486SX to compete with the AMD '386 real-deal clones. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (05/04/91)
In article <009480D4.E6FADF40@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >I hate the marketing dweebs at Intel (yes, Intel) who started pushing this idea >of making and selling castrated chips to capture market share.... And I hate the educational dweebs at UMD (yes, UMD) who started pushing this idea that all things they dislike are evils started by Intel. >I suppose >if you want your toaster to be binary-compatible with your Mac, it's a >wonderful idea, but somehow my skin crawls at this bastardization of technology >on the basis of a marketing decision. Obviously, there would *never* be any embedded applications currently using an 8086 or 68k which could use faster processors. I mean, if they don't need virtual memory, then they really don't need to run at faster than 4.77MHz, right? -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (05/05/91)
> Harumph...the latest chip announcements from Motorola include (more > or less): > > - a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled > - a 68030 with the MMU disabled > - cheaper/faster/better 68020s and 68000s (no FPU or MMU to disable) ... >I hope NeXT isn't planning to put any of these in their machines. >They just won't do the job. It sounds like Apple trying to keep those >profit margins up. Those chips sound like the 68EC040, 68EC030, 68EC020, and 68EC000, respectively; "EC" stands, presumably, for "Embedded Controller", that being what the chips are intended to serve as CPUs for. I don't think Motorola had UNIX-box vendors like NeXT in mind; they may or may not have had Apple in mind, but I wouldn't be the least surprised to find they didn't have Apple in mind either. It doesn't sound to *me* at all like "Apple trying to keep those profit margins up"; it sounds like Motorola trying to retain or increase market share in embedded control....
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (05/06/91)
In article <14720@encore.Encore.COM> jcallen@encore.Com (Jerry Callen) writes: | - a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled | - a 68030 with the MMU disabled Following in Intel's footsteps, taking something functional and reducing functionality to boost the profit margin and hurt competition. There's a nice technical term for chips with functions disabled by bean counters: capon. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Most of the VAX instructions are in microcode, but halt and no-op are in hardware for efficiency"
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (05/06/91)
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: >In article <14720@encore.Encore.COM> jcallen@encore.Com (Jerry Callen) writes: >| >| - a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled >| - a 68030 with the MMU disabled > > Following in Intel's footsteps, taking something functional and >reducing functionality to boost the profit margin and hurt competition. I was under the impression that these were simply chips which didn't pass all the MMU/FPU tests. Maybe not. But if they're willing to sell me them at a lower price for controller apps, I have no objection at all :-). cheers - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund) (05/07/91)
In <7627@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >Those chips sound like the 68EC040, 68EC030, 68EC020, and 68EC000, >respectively; "EC" stands, presumably, for "Embedded Controller", that >being what the chips are intended to serve as CPUs for. I don't think >Motorola had UNIX-box vendors like NeXT in mind; they may or may not >have had Apple in mind, but I wouldn't be the least surprised to find >they didn't have Apple in mind either. They are the 68ECxxx series. They are intended for embedded applications, meaning they have the MMU/FPU removed, fewer address lines (24 instead of 32 in 68EC020 and (I think) 68EC030. The advantages of these chips are lower cost and standardized tools. Using a 68ECxxx (or 80x86) for embedded applications one can choose from a large number of tools designed for the procesor. Speed and compiler quality are much better than microcontrollers (the 6811/8051/8096 etc families are SLOW and compilers are relatively hard to optimize). The market Motorola is going after is for high performance embedded systems such as disk controllers (and drives), communication controllers (e.g. 16 serial ports, Ethernet, FDDI), and automobiles (the 68332 was designed for one of the auto makers). The choices for high performance are processors like these or signal processors (DSPs). DSPs are best for applications requiring multiple / accumulate operations (they range up to multi-megaflop performance), however there are many embedded applications that just need a fast processor. For instance, I've worked for many years with disk controllers. Not counting initialization or error recovery (where performance isn't a real issue) the code had 2 divide and 2 multiply operations. So math performance isn't critical -- primarily high instruction execution rates. Some of the RISC makers are also starting to address the embedded systems market with RISC processors which don't need as many support chips or work with slower (cheaper) memory.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May03.182247.25757@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > In article <009480D4.E6FADF40@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: > >I hate the marketing dweebs at Intel (yes, Intel) who started pushing this idea > >of making and selling castrated chips to capture market share.... > And I hate the educational dweebs at UMD (yes, UMD) who started pushing this > idea that all things they dislike are evils started by Intel. Sure. Crippling a product and selling it for less has a long history. I remember a multi-thousand dollar upgrade for a Honeywell printer that involved removing a PC card and flipping a switch. Intel is just the first chip manufacturer to get the sort of demand curve that lets them get away with this. Blame the consumers who keep buying trash and then buying more and bigger CPUs to try to make that trash look good. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
dcarr@hobbit.gandalf.ca (Dave Carr) (05/07/91)
In <3403@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: >In article <14720@encore.Encore.COM> jcallen@encore.Com (Jerry Callen) writes: >| - a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled >| - a 68030 with the MMU disabled > Following in Intel's footsteps, taking something functional and >reducing functionality to boost the profit margin and hurt competition. >There's a nice technical term for chips with functions disabled by bean >counters: capon. I don't know about Intels crippled chips, but the Moto EC series are different dies than their more capable forerunners. According to our Moto rep, this was done to get more dies/wafer, and higher yields which is reflected in the price of the chips.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (05/07/91)
In article <N64B5=6@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >In article <1991May03.182247.25757@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >> In article <009480D4.E6FADF40@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >> >I hate the marketing dweebs at Intel (yes, Intel) who started pushing this idea >> >of making and selling castrated chips to capture market share.... > >> And I hate the educational dweebs at UMD (yes, UMD) who started pushing this >> idea that all things they dislike are evils started by Intel. > >Sure. Crippling a product and selling it for less has a long history. I >remember a multi-thousand dollar upgrade for a Honeywell printer that >involved removing a PC card and flipping a switch. Intel is just the first >chip manufacturer to get the sort of demand curve that lets them get away >with this. When you have a near-monopoly, you can afford to do this. Unfortunately, you're not competing on technology, you're competing on a marketing gimmick and to flog the competition. While the ACE consortium is still forming up, I think the embracing of MIPS by Compaq is a good thing and should give the Intel 80x86 series some legit competition. (diverging thought...) My hat is off to Digital, however. In one fell swoop, they turned half of ACE (the MIPS folks) into making DECstation clones. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
edwardm@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Edward McClanahan) (05/09/91)
Jerry Callen writes: > Harumph...the latest chip announcements from Motorola include (more or less): > - a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled > - a 68030 with the MMU disabled > - cheaper/faster/better 68020s and 68000s (no FPU or MMU to disable) Others discuss the apparent illogic of some of these... I think that Intel is the worst: - 486SX - same as 486, but 16-bit external data paths and no FPU - 487SX - actually the same as 486SX but with an FPU - Intel designed a special socket to parallel the 486SX so that if the 487SX is inserted, the 486SX is disabled and the 487SX becomes the CPU (w/ FPU) Intel claims that "inserting an FPU in a socket next to the CPU" is what customers want. What crap! Why not just remove the 486SX and insert the 487SX in its place? Pinout patterns different you say? The 486SX is soldered to the board (and not socketed)? I just don't understand the market for the 486SX (as it is really closer to a 386 than a 486). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Edward McClanahan Hewlett Packard Company -or- edwardm@cup.hp.com Mail Stop 42UN 11000 Wolfe Road Phone: (480)447-5651 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408)447-5039
lindsay@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) (05/12/91)
In article <3403@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >| - a 68040 with the MMU and FPU disabled >| - a 68030 with the MMU disabled > Following in Intel's footsteps, taking something functional and >reducing functionality to boost the profit margin and hurt competition. Actually, Motorola's strategy is quite different from Intel's. These chips (the EC series) should be seen as compatible upgrades to the low-end 68Ks, not downgrades of the high-end. They've made changes (such as pinout) which are aimed at pleasing the current customers of the older low-end chips. I heard yesterday about a board which used to contain a SPARC. The new, ten-times-faster version of the board is going to contain a 68K instead, because the heavy work obviously had to be migrated to hardware, and a 68K is now cheap. -- Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute
sauer@chs.dell.com (Charlie Sauer) (05/12/91)
In article <32580029@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> edwardm@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Edward McClanahan) writes: >- 486SX - same as 486, but 16-bit external data paths and no FPU The 486SX external data paths are 32 bit. No FPU, slower clock and different pinout are the main functional differences from the standard 486. -- Charlie Sauer Dell Computer Corp. !'s:uunet!dell!sauer (512) 343-3310 9505 Arboretum Blvd @'s:sauer@dell.com Austin, TX 78759-7299
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (05/13/91)
>- 486SX - same as 486, but 16-bit external data paths and no FPU You've obviously been confused by the "SX" in "486SX". The 486SX has 32-bit external data paths, the "SX" nonwithstanding. >I just don't understand the market for the 486SX (as it is really >closer to a 386 than a 486). I assume the market is "folks who don't need the FPU but want a faster processor".
ward@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Paul Ward) (05/13/91)
In article <7765@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >>- 486SX - same as 486, but 16-bit external data paths and no FPU > >You've obviously been confused by the "SX" in "486SX". The 486SX has >32-bit external data paths, the "SX" nonwithstanding. > >>I just don't understand the market for the 486SX (as it is really >>closer to a 386 than a 486). > >I assume the market is "folks who don't need the FPU but want a faster >processor". And demand a 486, 'cause it is the latest and greatest. (:-) -- "One can certainly imagine the myriad of uses for a hand-held iguana maker." - Hobbes.
stevel@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Steve Ligett) (05/14/91)
In article <14720@encore.Encore.COM> jcallen@encore.Com (Jerry Callen) writes: >(some complaints about chips for toasters) > >What's the price of the cheapest Moto chip to include an MMU (68030)? You know, the ec030 is cheaper than the 030 for two reasons; they took out the mmu, and they put it in a plastic pin-grid array (rather than ceramic). You may recall that the NSC 32532 was "cheapened" in the same manner to make the 32gx32(!?). Looking at the logic board for a Macintosh SE/30, I noticed that the 030 on the board is in a PLASTIC pin-grid array package. I called Wyle Labs, and was told that no, Motorola doesn't offer the 030 in a plastic pin-grid array package. So, perhaps they only make it for Apple. I wonder if they will offer it generally. I wonder how much (little!) Apple pays for 030's. -- steve.ligett@dartmouth.edu or ...!dartvax!steve.ligett
golds@fjc.GOV (Rich Goldschmidt) (05/16/91)
> >>I just don't understand the market for the 486SX (as it is really > >>closer to a 386 than a 486). >>I assume the market is "folks who don't need the FPU but want a faster >>processor". > And demand a 486, 'cause it is the latest and greatest. (:-) My understanding is that a large part of the market for a 486SX is for the laptop (now notebook) market. They need chips with low power consumption to make the batteries last. -- Rich Goldschmidt: uunet!fjcp60!golds or golds@fjc.gov Commercialization of space is the best way to escape the zero-sum economy. Disclaimer: I don't speak for the government, and it doesn't speak for me...
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (05/21/91)
>My understanding is that a large part of the market for a 486SX is for the >laptop (now notebook) market. They need chips with low power consumption to >make the batteries last. The 486SX uses, allegedly, the same die as the 486; does it really consume less power? Or are you thinking of the 386SL (not SX, SL)?