thaker@pak.harris-atd.com (Gautam Thaker) (04/12/89)
Why is comp.arch so quiet these days? What happened to the good old days of "processor wars"? 68040 and 486 have both been announced and there is almost nothing about them in the newsgroup. We have debated the question of which is better, the 386 or the 68030? Now can someone tell me which is better in the next round; the 68040 or the 486? Gautam H. Thaker Harris Corp; GSS; Advanced Technology Dept. (407) 729-7099 MS 3A/1912; P. O. Box 37; Melbourne, FL 32902 Internet: thaker@trantor.harris-atd.com
anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) (04/13/89)
In article <1928@trantor.harris-atd.com> thaker@trantor.harris-atd.com (Gautam Thaker) writes: >Why is comp.arch so quiet these days? What happened to the >good old days of "processor wars"? 68040 and 486 have both >been announced and there is almost nothing about them in >the newsgroup. We have debated the question of which is >better, the 386 or the 68030? Now can someone tell me which >is better in the next round; the 68040 or the 486? Dare I? If history is even slightly useful, I'd bet that the '486 gives the 68030 (yes, that's a three) a run for its money. The '40's probably out of its class. Intel has a nasty habit of being about a generation behind Motorola with this family...Of course, I haven't seen the specs on either (oblig. excuse:I've been busy). Anyone care to post/mail? Don't mind me, I always wear asbestos undergarments... Anand. -- "You're from Jersey? I'm from Jersey! What exit?" {arpa | bit}net: anand@vax1.acs.udel.edu, iyengar@eniac.seas.upenn.edu uucp:Same, just through uunet.
prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) (04/13/89)
In article <1928@trantor.harris-atd.com> thaker@trantor.harris-atd.com (Gautam Thaker) writes: >... >Now can someone tell me which is better in the next round; the 68040 >or the 486? Sure, that's easy. The 29000 is better Prem
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (04/14/89)
In article <1928@trantor.harris-atd.com> thaker@trantor.harris-atd.com (Gautam Thaker) writes: >Why is comp.arch so quiet these days? What happened to the >good old days of "processor wars"? 68040 and 486 have both >been announced and there is almost nothing about them in >the newsgroup. We have debated the question of which is >better, the 386 or the 68030? Now can someone tell me which >is better in the next round; the 68040 or the 486? Please, let us not fill THIS newsgroup with: "I think the xxx will be better than yyy because xxx's vendor says it will be N mips, and xxx's only says it will be M mips". "The xxx's architecture is awful, hence yyy must be better." "xxx has always lied, so yyy must be better". "I heard a fourth-hand rumor that yyy will be really fas "yyy runs at Z MHz more than xxx, so it must be better" "xxx and yyy are both scum, zzz is clearly better anyway." "xxx has more transistors than yyy, so it must be better" Many of us would welcome DATA, especially as both these chips are important; they're also interesting from an architectural view. a) It will be fascinating to compare 486 and i860 performance, costs, and delivery, given that this is probably the best RISC-vs-CISC comparisons around [same company; same technology; same-sized chip; designed about the same time.] b) For both 486 and 68040, it will be interesting to see the techniques used to improve processor efficiency, and what can be learned from them. In particular, did the use of VLSI lead to different improvement methods than those used over the years by mainframe/supermini vendors? However, other than making gross estimates, it's pretty hard to say very much about performance until one has: c) Well-documented simulations of buildable systems. (zero-wait-state main memories don't count :-) OR, REALLY: d) Lots of benchmarks run on real machines. How long will it be until one can get d)? (a while) Hence, I suggest that this issue may take a while to settle, or even reach reasonable conclusions. It would certainly be useful if knowledgable people from Intel & Moto would post FACTUAL information, so that we're not bombarded by second/third/ fourth - hand factoids.... -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/14/89)
In article <1928@trantor.harris-atd.com>, thaker@pak.harris-atd.com (Gautam Thaker) writes: > Why is comp.arch so quiet these days? What happened to the > good old days of "processor wars"? 68040 and 486... Nothing. It's just that the intel-vs-motorola wars are insufficiently exciting. The current rage is RISC vs CISC, now that RISC is finally showing some advantages. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
rajeevc@mipos2.intel.com (Rajeev Chandrasekhar~) (04/14/89)
In article <1928@trantor.harris-atd.com> thaker@trantor.harris-atd.com (Gautam Thaker) writes: >Why is comp.arch so quiet these days? What happened to the >good old days of "processor wars"? 68040 and 486 have both >been announced and there is almost nothing about them in >the newsgroup. We have debated the question of which is >better, the 386 or the 68030? Now can someone tell me which >is better in the next round; the 68040 or the 486? definitely the 80486.. :-) rajeev Rajeev Chandrasekhar Intel Corp >> theres someone in my head, and its not me << 2625, Walsh Ave MS SC4-59 (408) 765-4632 Santa Clara, CA 95051 {hplabs,oliveb}!intelca!mipos2!rajeevc
bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) (04/15/89)
>>Now can someone tell me which is better in the next round; the 68040 >>or the 486? >Sure, that's easy. The 29000 is better Er, uh, yeah, that's the right answer! :-) Seriously, they'll be somewhat close again. The 486 is a damn good implementation of a damn bad architecture. When data and instructions are in the on-chip cache and when the instruction stream is organized properly and uses the right subset of instructions, the 486 will have excellent performance. Yes, that's right, the simple instructions go fast on this machine and there is some advantage to ordering the instructions according to certain rules. Must be a new discovery of some sort! :-) It will run old code find, just not as fast as code that adheres to the new rules. Of course, it still has eight sometimes- special-purpose registers and other warts. This just goes to show what can be done with 1.2 million transistors and a huge die. Think what a MIPS, SPARC, 29000, 88000, etc. could do with the same implementation technology! (yeah, it might end up something like the i860.) The 040 will be very similar in spirit. The simple instructions will go fast, there will be on-chip caches and floating point. The die will be big, and it will have lots of transistors. The 040 might gain something from more registers. It might also gain from separate instruction and data caches (but this can also be a lose in some pathological situations because the caches will have to be somewhat small). So which is better? The one that costs the least and runs the software you like. If you like Unix, then a cheap RISC (29000?) is probably better. If you like MS-DOS, the 486 is the clear choice. The 486 is going to make LOTS of money if Intel can get a decent yeild. We might even see significant numbers of new UNIX machines using it.
mdeale@vega.acs.calpoly.edu (Myron Deale) (04/15/89)
In article <17178@winchester.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: >In article <1928@trantor.harris-atd.com> thaker@trantor.harris-atd.com (Gautam Thaker) writes: >> 68040 and 486 have both >>been announced and there is almost nothing about them in >>the newsgroup. We have debated the question of which is >>better, the 386 or the 68030? > >Please, let us not fill THIS newsgroup with: > "I think the xxx will be better than yyy because xxx's vendor says > it will be N mips, and xxx's only says it will be M mips". > "The xxx's architecture is awful, hence yyy must be better." > "xxx has always lied, so yyy must be better". > "I heard a fourth-hand rumor that yyy will be really fas > "yyy runs at Z MHz more than xxx, so it must be better" > "xxx and yyy are both scum, zzz is clearly better anyway." > "xxx has more transistors than yyy, so it must be better" well spoken. > >Many of us would welcome DATA, especially as both these chips are important; >they're also interesting from an architectural view. [stuff deleted] >However, other than making gross estimates, it's pretty hard to say >very much about performance until one has: > c) Well-documented simulations of buildable systems. > (zero-wait-state main memories don't count :-) ahh, come on. What the heck :-) > OR, REALLY: > d) Lots of benchmarks run on real machines. > >How long will it be until one can get d)? (a while) yes, but I need to be thinking about design issues now. Rough estimates will do. Of course, I don't expect CISC to compete with RISC, at least not performance-wise. >-john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> >UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com if I had the dinero to subscribe to Microprocessor Report (hopefully Real Soon Now) you wouldn't see me requesting information/discussion on these chips. There was lots of traffic here when the i860 was announced, although I probably shouldn't rank the new CISC in its class. The "quiet" is somewhat unnerving. EDN and the other trade rags/journals/what-not will undoubtledly greet the new CISC with pomp and circumstance. I expect to read that in the coming month. But, I need to know a chip's strengths AND weaknesses. The strengths you tout; the weaknesses you *design* around and lend uniqueness. Not to denigrate them, but as you well know, EDN doesn't provide a complete picture. The net helps out in this respect. my other option is to "order blind." i.e. call the respective marketing dept's and impose on them as much as possible for information. For various reasons I'd like to cut down on this practice. so, could we have some discussion on the new CISC from interested / knowledgeable parties. [which (hopefully) includes mash]. Myron // mdeale@cosmos.ACS.CalPoly.EDU // "... but cleanliness is next to RISCyness." ++ bcase
slackey@bbn.com (Stan Lackey) (04/17/89)
In article <17159@cup.portal.com> bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) writes: >>>Now can someone tell me which is better in the next round; the 68040 >>>or the 486? >>Sure, that's easy. The 29000 is better >Seriously, they'll be somewhat close again. The 486 is a damn good inplementation etc etc I think the loss if interest in the 680x0/80x86 war is due to the fact that it is over. No one will make a decision on 040/486 on anything to do with architecture; they will decide based on software! In other words, if they want to run lotus etc fast and compete in the clone wars :-)? it's the 486; if it's for workstations, it's the 040. No one should be designing them into new systems (other than in extending compatible product families). The war has moved to the complex (heh heh) RISC chips. I fully expect Motorola to come out with a statement showing planned 88000 implementations that will compete better against the 860. - Stan