[comp.sys.next] NeXT with an '040

paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (03/26/89)

OK ... the 68040 is said to be being introduced on March 28th (see
MacWeek etc). When will NeXT announce their '040 version? Looking
at the NeXT's system design in Byte a while ago it's pretty obvious
that that's what they designed it for, they had to hack around
a bit to get the '030 in .... any bets?

	Paul

-- 
Paul Campbell, Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul 
"'Give me your tired, your poor - I'll piss on them' that`s what the
Statue of Bigotry sais. 'Let`s club them to death, get it over with
and just dump them on the Boulevard'" - Lou Reed, "New York"

phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (03/26/89)

> When will NeXT announce their '040 version? Looking
>at the NeXT's system design in Byte a while ago it's pretty obvious
>that that's what they designed it for,

Not being a hardware engineer, how obvious is it? If so, is that a
good argument to wait buying NeXt? Is anything known about the performance
leap of the 68040, and---what's more important to me---the performance
leap of its accompanying floating point processor?

Thanks for any info ...

/ivo

paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (03/27/89)

In article <2460@tank.uchicago.edu> phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>> When will NeXT announce their '040 version? Looking
>>at the NeXT's system design in Byte a while ago it's pretty obvious
>>that that's what they designed it for,
>
>Not being a hardware engineer, how obvious is it? If so, is that a
>good argument to wait buying NeXt? Is anything known about the performance
>leap of the 68040, and---what's more important to me---the performance
>leap of its accompanying floating point processor?

I don't know, to me it seems very obvious .... but I wouldn't wait
my guess is that '040s will not be available in quantity at least
'till the end of the year (if you read the press you will see that
the 88k is only now becoming available in quantity even though
it was announced a long time ago). As far as performance of
the '040 etc I would wait untill it is announced (then read
comp.arch for the afterward arguments .... :-)

	Paul


-- 
Paul Campbell, Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul 
"'Give me your tired, your poor - I'll piss on them' that`s what the
Statue of Bigotry sais. 'Let`s club them to death, get it over with
and just dump them on the Boulevard'" - Lou Reed, "New York"

BruceH@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert Henderson) (03/28/89)

I think it will be a while until you see ANY machines with an '040 in 
them.  The fact is, they will be in very limited supply until about
6 months from now when Motorola will have finalized the die for the
thing and drop the XC off of the front. I think the shortest time 
until you see an '040 box will be 8 to 15 months [based on how long
it was until 88k machines were being turned out.  It's strictly a matter
of Motorola not being able to crank out thousands of chips until they
have it's design finalized.


BruceH@Portal.com

mdeale@algol.acs.calpoly.edu (Myron Deale) (03/28/89)

  Heck, I for one would like to see a migration to RISC. An 88K has
acceptable performance :-)

Myron
#mdeale@polyslo.calpoly.edu
#"...but cleanliness is next to RISCyness." -- bcase
#arggh

daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (04/05/89)

in article <9876@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, mdeale@algol.acs.calpoly.edu (Myron Deale) says:

>   Heck, I for one would like to see a migration to RISC. An 88K has
> acceptable performance :-)

Moto's been claiming that the '040 will edge out the current 88100+2*88200
in all-around performance.  Of course, the current 88ks only run at 20MHz
or so....

> Myron
-- 
Dave Haynie  "The 32 Bit Guy"     Commodore-Amiga  "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: D-DAVE H     BIX: hazy
              Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession

daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (04/05/89)

in article <331@taniwha.UUCP>, paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) says:

> In article <2460@tank.uchicago.edu> phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:

>>> When will NeXT announce their '040 version? Looking
>>>at the NeXT's system design in Byte a while ago it's pretty obvious
>>>that that's what they designed it for,

>>Not being a hardware engineer, how obvious is it? If so, is that a
>>good argument to wait buying NeXt? Is anything known about the performance
>>leap of the 68040, and---what's more important to me---the performance
>>leap of its accompanying floating point processor?

> I don't know, to me it seems very obvious .... 

> 	Paul

It didn't seem all that obvious to me.  The '040 looks like it would drop
onto a MUXed A-D bus easier than the '030 (save yourself some buffers), but
the reasoning behind the NeXT's motherboard being all MUXed A-D eluded me,
other than the fact that it's a drop into their NuBus-ish bus.  And it 
saves a bit on pin count, at the price of performance.  If they had used
static column DRAMs or some bank-interleaving techniques for system memory,
rather than nybble-mode memory, I'd be inclined to belive they were thinking
more of the '040 than it looks.  I certainly haven't looked down much deeper
than this, though.  Is there some extra interfacing goop (other than the
buffers for the A-D bus) between the '030 and the rest of the system that
might align much better with the significantly different system bus of the
'040?

> Paul Campbell, Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul 

-- 
Dave Haynie  "The 32 Bit Guy"     Commodore-Amiga  "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: D-DAVE H     BIX: hazy
              Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession

tron@wpi.wpi.edu (Richard G Brewer) (04/05/89)

In article <6492@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
>Moto's been claiming that the '040 will edge out the current 88100+2*88200
>in all-around performance.  Of course, the current 88ks only run at 20MHz
>or so....
>
>-- 
>Dave Haynie  "The 32 Bit Guy"     Commodore-Amiga  "The Crew That Never Rests"

It's supposed to be a fast machine - I've hears that Apple's been toying with
the '040 for their new line if Macs, with a New OS Due out sometime this year
(But then this doesn't suprise me, as Motorolla uses Apple's Cray for Advanced
Microprocessor Design...) 

- Richard G. Brewer

tron@wpi.wpi.edu
rbrewer@wpi.bitnet

rec@dg.dg.com (Robert Cousins) (04/06/89)

In article <6492@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
>in article <9876@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, mdeale@algol.acs.calpoly.edu (Myron Deale) says:
>
>>   Heck, I for one would like to see a migration to RISC. An 88K has
>> acceptable performance :-)
>
>Moto's been claiming that the '040 will edge out the current 88100+2*88200
>in all-around performance.  Of course, the current 88ks only run at 20MHz
>or so....
>
>> Myron
>-- 
>Dave Haynie  "The 32 Bit Guy"     Commodore-Amiga  "The Crew That Never Rests"
>   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: D-DAVE H     BIX: hazy
>              Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
My experience with the 88K is that it is quite fast and capable of surprising
the user by its power.  On the DG AViiON series, we found that if one 
computed the MIPS rating off of simple Dhrystones and normalized to a
VAX 11/780 (in other words 1 Dhrystone MIPS = 1757 Dhrystones), the 88K
gives you more MIPS than the CPU clock rate!  Not bad for a RISC where
it was originally surmized that the ratio of CISC instructions to RISC
instructions would end up somewhat lopsided.

One of the major reasons for the 88K's improved performance is the 
enlarged number of registers (32 x 32 bits) along with the seperate
data and instruction caches (4 way set associative).  Another reason
that the 88K will do well is that it is easier to build a multiprocessor
88K machine in my experience than it is a 68K one.  Our experience with
multiple 88Ks shows that they perform wonderfully.  

Lastly, one reason why I'd buy an 88K over a 68K any day is that there is
an ABI (applications binary interface definition) which allows truly 
portable applications between vendors.  How many 68K vendors can point
to the fact that they can run the binaries from other vendors?  In fact
I do believe that some vendors are actually REMOVING binary compatibility
from their OSes to guarantee that this won't take place.  

Anyway, the 88K products are available now.

Robert Cousins

Speaking for myself alone.