Should I go Athlon64 or Barton?

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:22:20 -0400, keith wrote:

Nothing but BS.

Now go read this, pack your tail between your legs like the monkey brain
you are, and get the **** out of my life and don't reply.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/M68000

Just a few small quotes.

It is important to note that even though the 68000 had a 16bit ALU,

So even though starting out as "16bit" cpu,

The successor 68020 with 32bit ALU and 32bit databus runs unchanged 68000
software at "32bit speed", manipulating data up to 4 gigabyte, far beyond
what software of other "16bit" cpus (e.g. 8086) could do.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, keith on
Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:12:26 -0400 spoke:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:36:10 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:29:44 -0400, keith wrote:

Second, the 8088 is by any reasonable definition a "real" 16-bit
processor. It has *exactly* the same architecture as the 8086, so
if you consider the 8086 a "real" 16b processor, then you must
also admit that the 8088 is.

No one cares how you define, just as no one cares how I define, but
the fact is that Intel itself defined it as an 8 bit CPU when it
first came out. I had this same arguement a couple of years ago.
Someone with a scanner finally proved me right. I'm still willing
to bet though.:-)

Ind I say you're wrong! Intel defined the 8088 as a 16b processor.
It was sold as a cheapie, because it had an 8b bus.

From http://www.microprocessor.sscc.ru/comphist/comp1983.htm
[...]
And then from http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~phys532/lecture15.pdf
[...]
No doubt, a 16 bit CPU (but with an 8 bit data bus).

What you have quoted comes from people other than Intel in the early 80's,
and pretty much agrees with what Wes is saying. By current definitions, the
8088 was/is a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit bus. At the time, though, Intel
called it an 8-bit CPU with a 16-bit internal architecture (just readable in
the photos below).

I found the images I'd taken last time this argument came up:
http://www.emboss.co.nz/downloads/8088_image01.jpg
http://www.emboss.co.nz/downloads/8088_image02.jpg

They're from the 1983 edition of the Intel "Microprocessor and Peripheral
Handbook" (order number 210844-01) which is basically a book of the
datasheets of a whole lot of Intel's microprocessors and related chips (DMA
controllers, FDD controllers, CRT controllers, etc etc). I'd say it's pretty
much as authoritive as it comes when talking about how Intel described it's
CPUs at the time.

Sorry for the terrible quality. It's an old, old school digital camera that
tops out at 640x480

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

In article , Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
wrote:
It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in order
not to compete with other business divisions.

IBM actually put the design of the PC out to tender. I'm not sure what
the spec for the tender was, but I doubt IBM specified anything too
carefully as they really viewed the PC as a box to tick on the marketing
sheets when customers said "... and can you supply desktop systems?".
Nobody was more surprised than IBM when the PC came to account for a
significant part of their revenue in the first couple of years. It's
often said that if IBM had understood the importance the PC would come
to have they'd have designed it WORSE, so as to protect their investment
in mainframe technologies.

The reason that most people cite for the choice of the 8086 family of
processors (whoever made that choice) is that intel offered a conversion
tool (Conv86) that could automatically translate 8080/8085 assembler to
8086 assembler, so it would be relatively cheap and easy for software
companies to translate their CP/M-80 applications to CP/M-86 (and, as it
turned out, MS-DOS). My employer at the time couldn't use it because our
8-bit product was written for the Z80, which had more instructions and
different assembler mnemonics from the intel chips -- so we wrote our
own. It wasn't hard, and I think we could have targetted the 68k with
only a little more effort (though targetting a different OS design would
have been a bit more work).

Cheers,
Daniel.

In article
news:pan.2004.09.10.17.56.24.754829@TAKEOUTverizo n.net, Wes
Newell wrote:
... the 68000 only had a 16 bit data bus ...

smacks forehead

Externally. Yes, of course. I knew that (once).

Daft thing is: I actually hauled my 68000 reference book off the
shelf to check that I'd remembered the 24-bit external address bus
bit correctly, but didn't think to check the data bus width. sigh

Cheers,
Daniel.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:05:46 +1200, Michael Brown wrote:

What you have quoted comes from people other than Intel in the early 80's,
and pretty much agrees with what Wes is saying. By current definitions, the
8088 was/is a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit bus. At the time, though, Intel
called it an 8-bit CPU with a 16-bit internal architecture (just readable in
the photos below).

I found the images I'd taken last time this argument came up:
http://www.emboss.co.nz/downloads/8088_image01.jpg
http://www.emboss.co.nz/downloads/8088_image02.jpg

They're from the 1983 edition of the Intel "Microprocessor and Peripheral
Handbook" (order number 210844-01) which is basically a book of the
datasheets of a whole lot of Intel's microprocessors and related chips (DMA
controllers, FDD controllers, CRT controllers, etc etc). I'd say it's pretty
much as authoritive as it comes when talking about how Intel described it's
CPUs at the time.

Thanks for the backup. Image saved for future settlements. I did take a
picture of the 16 bit 68000 too, but I didn't post it anwhere Interesting
that in 83 Intel was still defining the 8088 as 8 bit even though ads for
the PC had been calling it 16 bit for a couple of years. Amazing how 8 bit
turns magically into 16 and 16 into 32. And now 200 into 400. Gotta love
those marketing people that know most consumers don't know squat.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Are you retarded or something?

wrote in message
...
*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*