Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux4.cso.uiuc.edu!rvenkate
From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: x86 ~= 680x0 ?? (How do they compare?)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 16:53:10 GMT
Message-ID: <C5ouwn.BMw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: usa
References: <1094@ubbpc.tredydev.Unisys.COM> <rayC5Mz22.10z@netcom.com> <C5nq9C.LLp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1qrt14$ph7@info2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
Sender: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 28

skok@itwds1.energietechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Holger Skok) writes:

>In article <C5nq9C.LLp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar) writes:
>[... stuff deleted]
>>
>>Besides, for 0 wait state performance, you'd need a cache anyway. I mean,
>>who uses a processor that runs at the speed of 80ns SIMMs? Note that this
>>memory speed corresponds to a clock speed of 12.5 MHz.
>>
>[more stuff deleted...]

>How do you calculate that figure? I'd assume even in personal computers
>the board designers would use bank switching to (optimistically) 
>quadruple the access speed  or am I missing something here?

The previous article referred to the fact that you could only use 20ns SIMMs in
a 50MHz machine, but that you could use 80ns SIMMs in slower machines. I just
pointed out that if you could only use 20ns SIMMs in a 50MHz machine, you can't
use 80ns SIMMs in anything faster than a 12.5 MHz machine. Bank switching and
caches were not considered in either example (although both would help memory
access).

>HSK
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
