dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (02/11/90)
There's been some talk of a new low-cost Mac, which most people
speculate will use a 68000. In addition, the Mac Portable uses
the 68000.
What are the advantages of designing a 68000 system over a 68030
at this point? I would assume that volume CPU chip cost wouldn't
be that much more.
--
David Elliott
dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
(408)944-4073
"You see everything -- you're omnivorous."ashore@hpsad.HP.COM (Alex Shore) (02/13/90)
Your assumption is that volume for a 68000 is about the same as volume for the 68030, which is sadly mistaken. The 68030 is new, has alot more features (read "transistors") and requires a more expensive package than the 68000. Based on package and die area, even with second-source competition (which there is none for the 68030) the 68030 would still be 3-4x the cost of a 68000. The 68000 can be bought from people other than Motorola, but the 68030 can't, so there's another reason Motorola will raking it in. Really, they should; I'm sure it cost them a bundle to develop it.
6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (GurgleKat [Pete Gontier]) (02/13/90)
From article <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com>, by dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott): > There's been some talk of a new low-cost Mac, which most people > speculate will use a 68000. In addition, the Mac Portable uses > the 68000. > > What are the advantages of designing a 68000 system over a 68030 > at this point? I would assume that volume CPU chip cost wouldn't > be that much more. I'm no hardware geek, but I do remember reading something about why the 68000 was used in the portable: power consumption. It was said that the '030 drew more power by itself than ENTIRE 68000-based MOTHERBOARD, inlcuding a meg of RAM! I was impressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
rc2o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Lee Chung) (02/13/90)
The power consumption is totally bogus. The current battery pack can
run for 6 hours. At most the 68030 would draw twice as much. I would
certainly prefer a 3hour Mac II than a 6 hour SE. What about back up
batteries. You could just put in as many as you want just have an external
charger.
Fact is that Apple could not introduce one being that they would have
to charge so much that no one would want one. Perhaps in the near future
they will but I do not think that they thought it was a good marketting
scheme at the present time, which I agree with.
Richamichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (02/13/90)
In article <3919@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes: >From article <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com>, by dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott): >> What are the advantages of designing a 68000 system over a 68030 >> at this point? I would assume that volume CPU chip cost wouldn't >> be that much more. >why the 68000 was used in the portable: power consumption. It was The unit price for a 68000 is about $ 10, the 68020 about $ 90, and the 68030 about $ 200. This price structure is very similiar to that for quan purchases made today. The 68030 is a LOT more expensive just at the part level. A 68030 system requires a LOT more & a WHOLE LOT more espensive components to complete a whole system. Look at a Mac plus, (the old ones) are mostly indentifiable cheap $ .29 each components (generally). Then pop open a mac II. That suck is chock full of 'funny' numbers & custom chips, which probably average about $ 7.50 each. All of this stacks up to expensive hardware. Then the speed requirements make the system ram expensive. If apple then made the clock slow to save $$$, the public would scream and other companies would eat them up with a speed up kit, now fairly cheap cause apple has done all the hard part with the 030 design. Power is a good factor, as shown above, but it probably is nearly the smallest consideration made on a system of this type. al
hpoppe@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) (02/13/90)
In article <3919@hub.UUCP# 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes:
#From article <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com#, by dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott):
## There's been some talk of a new low-cost Mac, which most people
## speculate will use a 68000. In addition, the Mac Portable uses
## the 68000.
##
## What are the advantages of designing a 68000 system over a 68030
## at this point? I would assume that volume CPU chip cost wouldn't
## be that much more.
#
#I'm no hardware geek, but I do remember reading something about
#why the 68000 was used in the portable: power consumption. It was
#said that the '030 drew more power by itself than ENTIRE 68000-based
#MOTHERBOARD, inlcuding a meg of RAM! I was impressed.
The processor in the Mac Portable is a Motorola MC68HC000 running
at 16 MHz. The HC stands for "High speed CMOS". The 68000 (in the Plus
and SE) is not CMOS. CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor)
is a low power semiconductor technology. Generally speaking, HC devices
are more expensive than competing technologies (LSTTL, NMOS), although
the gap is narrowing.
--
Herb Poppe NCAR INTERNET: hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu
(303) 497-1296 P.O. Box 3000 CSNET: hpoppe@ncar.CSNET
Boulder, CO 80307 UUCP: hpoppe@ncar.UUCPdce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (02/13/90)
In article <10090004@hpsad.HP.COM> ashore@hpsad.HP.COM (Alex Shore) writes: > >Your assumption is that volume for a 68000 is about the same as volume for >the 68030, which is sadly mistaken. That's not what I said. I said that I didn't think that the chip cost would be that much more. I figured that a 68000 costs $10-$20, so even with your 3-4X figure, the 68030 is not costly enough to make it out of the question for a low-cost Mac. Even $100 a chip is worth it for the added functionality. Also, realize that I'm talking about Apple developing a machine that won't come to market until at least the end of this year, and when it does it will ship in such volume that whatever chip is used is going to drop in price. -- David Elliott dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce (408)944-4073
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (02/14/90)
From article <1990Feb11.154304.19943@smsc.sony.com>, by dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott): >> There's been some talk of a new low-cost Mac, which most people >> speculate will use a 68000. In addition, the Mac Portable uses >> the 68000. >> >> What are the advantages of designing a 68000 system over a 68030 >> at this point? I would assume that volume CPU chip cost wouldn't >> be that much more. I wouldn't be so sure; the 68030 is still Motorola's top of the line general purpose microprocessor. Probably at least a factor of four difference in chip price in quantity, conceivably a lot more. In article <3919@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes: >I'm no hardware geek, but I do remember reading something about >why the 68000 was used in the portable: power consumption. It was >said that the '030 drew more power by itself than ENTIRE 68000-based >MOTHERBOARD, inlcuding a meg of RAM! I was impressed. This is a bit deceptive. The real comparison here is not between the 68000 and the 68030, but between an nMOS chip and a CMOS chip. The traditional nMOS chips are cheaper to design and fabricate, but they use a lot more power than the CMOS technology. The 68000 in the Mac Portable is a CMOS 68000, not the nMOS 68000 in a Mac Plus or Mac SE. The reason Apple didn't use their current baseline chip, the 68030, in the Portable, is simply that there is no CMOS version of the 030 yet. So, the comparison you draw is probably true, but only if a CMOS 68000 is used; if there were a CMOS 68030, then the power consumption would be in the same ballpark as the CMOS 68000, I believe. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." -- John Stuart Mill, UTILITARIANISM (1863)
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (02/15/90)
In article <10223@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: > The reason Apple didn't use their current baseline chip, the 68030, in > the Portable, is simply that there is no CMOS version of the 030 yet. Bzzzt! Thank you for playing :-) :-)... Actually, the problem is that the 030 is already in CMOS, and *still* draws 2.5 watts, thanks to all of those transistors. An NMOS version of the 030 would require the kind of mondo heat sink you see on new Intel chips :-), and would still probably make a nice little space heater. Another big factor is RAM. The faster static RAM is, the more power it draws and the hotter it runs. The 030's burst mode isn't nearly as useful for static RAM as it is for static-column dynamic RAM. An 030 with a couple megs of fast enough static RAM (which you need for sleep mode etc.) would fly like the wind, but it would eat batteries, not to mention keeping your lunch warm at the same time :-). That's it! The officially promised HyperCard Mr. Coffee interface! They pipe water past the motherboard to keep it cool... -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"
dlugose@uncecs.edu (Dan Dlugose) (02/15/90)
Any new low end Mac will be bought by a lot of people who will want to
upgrade it and do more a year or two later.
Previous articles compared the 68000 to the 68030. I don't know if
someone has pointed out that since most people will sooner or later
want to use System 7.0 AND virtual memory, they will need something
beyond the 68000. In these discussions a little knowledge is
dangerous, but I gather that the 68000 cannot support memory
management in a way that will support System 7, since Steve Williams'
68030 Assembly Language Reference (Addison-Wesley) states on p. 8
"The 68000 lacks the ability to restart an instruction following
a memory fault, but the 68010 permits the instruction to be continued
after the condition that caused the fault to be corrected" supporting
virtual memory. So I believe the minumum chip would be a 68010 AND
MMU chip, which might use more power than a 68030 with its on board
memory management.
Dan Dlugose
UNC Educational Computing Servicetim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (02/16/90)
In article <10223@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >> The reason Apple didn't use their current baseline chip, the 68030, in >> the Portable, is simply that there is no CMOS version of the 030 yet. In article <1990Feb14.185659.797@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >Bzzzt! Thank you for playing :-) :-)... Do I get a choice of the boxed set or the Nintendo play-at-home version? >Actually, the problem is that the 030 is already in CMOS, and *still* draws >2.5 watts, thanks to all of those transistors. An NMOS version of the 030 >would require the kind of mondo heat sink you see on new Intel chips :-), >and would still probably make a nice little space heater. Thanks for the correction. Now, I just hope someone tells Steven Levy, who wrote in the March 1990 MacWorld that "the mighty 68030 chip isn't available in a CMOS version" (page 54). He attributes this to Apple but never indicates that it is incorrect; and I know I've also seen it elsewhere in the trade press. (Surprise, surprise. I recently asked a staffer of MacWeek on one of the Fido Mac echoes what their magazine did to screen articles for technical errors before publication. Needless to say, I never got an answer. "Press release distribution service, may I help you?") -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com FROM THE FOOL FILE: "Women's wages are 56% of men's -- but that's not necessarily evidence of discrimination in employment." -- Clayton Cramer in news.groups and soc.women
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (02/21/90)
In article <0ZpnPge00WB2ILZFJz@andrew.cmu.edu>, rc2o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Lee Chung) writes: > > The power consumption is totally bogus. The current battery pack can > run for 6 hours. At most the 68030 would draw twice as much. I would A 68030 probably draws twice (or more) of the current of a plain vanilla 68000. A plain 68000 also draws a good bit more than the CMOS version 68K in the Portable. This ignores all the other packages on the board. > certainly prefer a 3hour Mac II than a 6 hour SE. What about back up > batteries. You could just put in as many as you want just have an external > charger. The thing's heavy enough as it is! ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (02/21/90)
In article <1990Feb13.044454.23665@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: > > I figured that a 68000 costs $10-$20, so even with your 3-4X figure, > the 68030 is not costly enough to make it out of the question for a > low-cost Mac. Even $100 a chip is worth it for the added > functionality. Suppose the machine used a $100 CPU instead of the $10 one it uses... That $90 differential translates to something more like $360 increase in finished product to the buyer. We just ignored the added cost of any other circuitry/components/casework/etc of the upgraded machine. The old number used to be something like 4-5x cost of manufacture for cost of product. (That was some years ago, but I doubt if Apple's been trimming things much since then.) They have to pay for other things than raw manufacturing costs...and you can bet they do. ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_